R E P O R T 



IN THE CIVIL SERVICE 



RELATIVE TO 



CHARGES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES 
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 



RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JANUARY 27, 1890. 



WASHINOTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,, 

1890. 



/ 
REPORT 

OF THE 



w 



m REFORM IN THE ClYIL SERVICE 



RELATIVE TO 



CHARGES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES 
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 



UNDER 



EESOLUTION PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF KEPEESENTATIVES 
JANUARY 27, 1890. 



WASHINGTON: 

OOVEKNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 
1890. 



. JAN 1S06 
B. ot 0. 






T\ 



51st Congress, ) HOUSE OF EEPEESBNTATIYES, j Eepoet 

1st Session. J ( Ko. 2445. 



EEFORM l^ THE CIVIL SEEVICE. 



June i;^, 1890. — Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. 



Mr. Lehlbach, from the Select Committee on Eeform in the Civil 
Service submitted the following 

REPORT: 

The Select Committee on Eeform in the Civil Service, who were in- 
structed by the House, by resolution passed January 27, 1890, to inves- 
tigate charges against the United States Civil Service Commission, and 
the workings and results generally of the civil service law, respect- 
fully submit the following report : 

On the 27th day of January of the present year the House passed 
the following resolution : 

Whereas it is openly and repeatedly charged by persons of responsibility and by 
prominent journals throughout the country that the law pertaining to the civil 
service is being extensively evaded by the Civil Service Commissioners ; and 

Whereas charges of partiality shown by said Commissioners in making selections 
for appointmeiits have caused uneasiness in the minds of many, and to such an ex- 
tent that new legislation as to the manner pf making appointments is advocated ; 
and 

Whereas it is deemed exiiedient that the acts and doings and practical workings of 
the said Civil Service Commission and the results thereof, and also the practical 
workings and results generally of the present law relating to the civil service, should 
be thoroughly investigated : Therefore, 

Be it resolved, That the Select Committee on Reform in the Civil Service is hereby 
authorized and directed to investigate said charges, and to examine and report the 
practical workings of the system, and to report the evidence and the conclusions 
thereon to the House, and that said committee is hereby authorized to send for and 
examine persons, books, and papers, and administer oaths to witnesses, and to em- 
. ploy a stenographer; the expenses of said investigation to be paid out of the contin- 
' '>nt fund of the House. 

It was the judgment of the committee that the investigation should 

oe conducted in two branches: the one to embrace the charges against 

he personal actions of the present and former Commissioners; the other 

branch of the inquiry to examine into the workings of the civil service 

w. Your committee has completed its examination relating to the 

■St branch of the inquiry, going as far as seemed necessary to obtain 
' practical conclusion. 

The charges against the Commission affecting the personal fitness of 
] e present Commissioners were deemed proper by your committee to 
" ;; investigated at once and a report submitted to the House as speedily 
as possible, the same to be accompanied by a resolution. 

The committee have examined twent^'^-four witnesses, and have come 
to the following conclusions, deduced from the testimony of those wit- 
nesses : 

On the first charge, affecting the conduct, retention, and j)romotion 



II CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

of Alex. C. Campbell, the committee recite the following facts and con- 
clusions which they have reached in the case : 

It appears that the said Campbell (a brother-in-law of Commissioner 
Lyman), some time during the tall of 1887, coioied certain arithmetical 
questions of the general examination series for departmental service, 
together with their answers, at the request of a Mrs. Isabella Smith, to 
whom he gave them. These pai)ers came into the hands of one Flynn, 
a person engaged in coaching applicants for office about to take the 
civil service examinations. It appears from the evidence of Miss Emily 
M. Dabney that Flynn offered to sell these questions to her, she being 
about to take an examination. She refused to purchase them, attended 
the examination, and failed. She recognized the questions as being 
the same shown to her by Flynn, and consequently these questions 
were used in the examination held December 3, 1887. 

The attention of the Commission was called to the conduct of Camp- 
bell. 

Mr. Oberly, Mr. Lyman, and Mr. Doyle severally investigated, to a 
greater or less extent, the charges preferred against Campbell, found 
hioi guilty of a breach of discipline, and he was reprimanded. But 
these gentlemen, as it appears from the testimony, failed to ascertain 
definitely whether the questions copied by Campbell and given Mrs. 
Smith were obsolete or not. They gave it as their belief, however, that 
the questions were obsolete. It occurred that they directed their in- 
quiry to ascertaining whether the copy of the questions was in the 
handwriting of Campbell — an inquiry that was of little consequence if 
the questions were in fact obsolete. 

The real offense consisted in copying and giving out questions that 
could be used in the examination to take place thereafter, and not in 
copying questions that were obsolete, and hence worthless to Mrs. 
Smith to use or sell. And it is not probable that Mr. Campbell copied 
questions and answers merely to give Mrs. Smith an idea of the charac- 
ter of the examination, since, if that was so, it would have been quite 
enough to have copied the questions only. The omission to ascertain 
whether the questions were for use or to be used at an ensuing exami- 
nation was a palpable neglect of duty, since the fact not inquired about 
was obviously the one controlling fact essential in d.etermining the de- 
gree of Campbell's culpability. 

Obsolete questions are published now. They might have been prh 
lished then without injury to the i)ublic service. Not only is IV 
Dabney clear and explicit in her statement that she recognized • 
questions shown her by Flynn to be the same that confronted her 
the examination, but all the circumstances confirm her statement. 5 
Smith could have no use for questions and answers unless they "v^ 
such as she could use for some purpose. Flynn could hardly h ■ 
hoped to find a market for questions and answers that were obsoh- 
and it was not so important whether Campbell did the copying 
whether what was cojiied was of consequence as pertaining to su 
quent examinations. 

It is clear to your committee that Campbell copied the questions, 
that they were not obsolete. An investigation properly conducted w( 
have disclosed the fact. If the administration of the Civil Service 

not to fall into disrepute Mr. Campbell should have been dismissed. 

retention indicated gross laxity in discipline and shows that the admin- 
istration of the Commission was not such at that time as to receive or 
merit public confidence. 

One of the charges against the Commission was that Mr. Campbell 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. Ill 

\vas not oulj' retained, nothwithstanding his offense in the matter of 
copying' and giving out the questions, but that he was promoted. In 
view of the fact that Campbell had been guilty of conduct which was 
calculated to destroy confidence iu the integrity of the administration 
of tbe Commission, his promotion would seem not to have been defeu- 
sible. Mr. Lyman, however, implies that the conduct of Campbell in 
giving out questions cut no figure in the matter of his promotion ; that 
that matter had been disposed of loug prior to the promotion, by Mr. 
Oberly, to whom the charges against Campbell had been referred for 
investigation and such further action as the facts disclosed might 
warrant. 

It was stated that Mr. Oberly did make the investigation and con- 
demned Campbell's conduct and reprimanded him and there was an end 
of the matter, and when the question of his promotion came up Com- 
missioner Lyman seems not to have regarded Campbell's conduct with 
reference to the giving out of the questions he had copied as being an 
item worthy of consideration. It is admitted that it was a question for 
the Commissioners to determine what punishment should be visited upon 
Mr. Campbell in case he was found guilty of a breach of discipline, as 
he was; but your committee can not avoid the conclusion that either 
the investigation was very superficial, and hence failed to disclose the 
gravity of the offense, or that the administration of the affairs of the 
Commission was not such as to commend it to favor ; possibly both. It 
is submitted that if the Commission had discharged its duty with proper 
vigor and regard for the public, it would have become manifest that 
Campbell's retention was not defensible, and it would seem to follow 
that if his retention was not proper his promotion was not warranted. 

Your committee can not accept as satisfactory the answer of Messrs. 
Oberly, Lyman, and Doyle, that they believe that the questions Camp- 
bell copied were obsolete. The facts disclosed to your committee con- 
vince them that the omission to ascertain the truth was as reprehensible 
as to have disregarded it after it had been ascertained, and is little less 
culpable; and whether they failed through indifference or partiality 
to learn the facts, or, knowing them, failed to take such action as the 
public service obviously demanded, is not a matter of great consequence; 
the neglect of duty in either case is condemned. 

It has been suggested that Commissioners Roosevelt and Thompson 
are deserving of censure for not having taken action in the Campbell 
case. Your committee do not share in that view. On the contrary, 
there is nothing in their conduct to challenge criticism. When their at- 
tention was called to the matter by the newspaper reports, they called 
the parties concerned before them, separately and without the oppor- 
tunity of their conferring with each other, and there was a concurrence 
of statement that the matter had been fully investigated and Mr. Camp- 
bell punished ; and it being, as to them, res adjudicata, they did not take 
further action in the matter, and in that we think they were thoroughly 
justified. 

Your committee has further investigated certain charges against the 
Commission in relation to the promotion of Edwin D. Bailey, another 
clerk of the United !Si;ates Civil Service Commission, to the i^osition of 
stenographer, and in relation to the appointment of Thomas Mitchell, 
of Connecticut, to a i)osition in the Pension Office. They have found 
that the action of the Commission in both these cases was not contrary 
to the law and rules of the Commission, and in no way are they cen- 
surable. 



IV CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

A charge was also preferred against the Commissioners reiiecting 
against the course pursued by them in the case of one Shidy, who was 
an employe In the post-office at Milwaukee. It appears that Shidy 
was employed in the post-office at Milwaukee, and was charged with 
the duty of conducting examinations, or at least in preparing the 
list of eligibles from which appointments to positions in the Mil- 
waukee office were made ; that gross irregularities occurred in the 
preparation of the list of eligibles and the certification of names there- 
from. It seems that Shidy acted under the direction of the postmas- 
ter in facilitating the appointment of certain applicants for position in 
controvention of the plain letter and spirit of the civil-service law. 

The Civil Service Commission learning of these irregularities re- 
ported the same to President Cleveland, who immediately directed a 
thorough investigation. An investigation was prosecuted by Webster 
and Doyle, employes of the Commission, and in the investigation it was 
made clear that the irregularities complained of really existed. Subse- 
quently Messrs. Eoosevelt and Thompson, who had been appointed mem- 
bers of the Commission, had their attention called to the violations of 
law in the Milwaukee office, and proceeded at once to make a searching 
investigation. They summoned Mr. Shidy, who appeared before them 
and expressed his willingness to testify fully as to what had taken place 
in the Milwaukee post-office, but feared that it would result in his los- 
ing his situation, and as a consequence his means of livelihood, as he de- 
pended upon his salary for the support of himself and his family. 

The Commissioners desired to have him state fully and in detail 
every fact essential to the exposure of the irregularities that had taken 
place so far as the violation of the civil-service law was concerned ; and 
they further stated to him that they would use their influence to protect 
him and prevent his losing his situation as a result of his disclosing the 
truth He did testify fully and at length, and was useful in exposing 
the frauds that had been practiced in the Milwaukee office and vindi- 
cating the, law. He was discharged by the postmaster for so doing ; at 
least there seems to have been no other ground for his discharge. The 
Commissioners ielt, and it was apparent, that Shidy was being pun- 
ished for disclosing the truth and felt it to be their duty to aid him by 
their influence in securing employment, and thereupon recommended 
him for appointment in the Census Office, and he was appointe<l. 

This recommendation for appointment was made the ground of criti- 
cism against the Commissioners, Messrs. Roosevelt and Thompson. 
Their conduct in this behalf is not exceptional, nor does it tend to the 
demoralization of the service. It would have been ground for criticism 
if instead of keeping faith with the witness ihey had permitted those 
who concealed the truth and assisted in the frauds to escape and retain 
their positions, and had suffered Shidy, who had been instrumental in 
exposing the fraud and bringing the truth to light, to be punished for 
so doing. The Commissioners insisted that the man who told the truth 
and assisted the Government in unearthing a fraud and vindicating 
the law should at least fare as well as those who did the reverse. For 
that reason they recommended the appointment of Shidy as aforesaid. 

Your committee is unable to find anything to criticise in that behalf. 
They did nothing in their official capacity in the matter of giving or 
securing Shidy employment, but as individuals, in view of his eftbrts 
to aid them, they recommended his employment to Mr. Porter, who 
gave him a clerkship. 

It is proper to say that the investigation of the alleged irregularities 
in the Milwaukee post-office, conducted by Doyle and Webster, dis- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION/ V 

closed au utter disregard of the civil-service law iu this office, and 
the failure to submit the result of that investigation to the President 
indicates either a disinclination to discharge an obvious duty or a fear 
that such a report would subject the Commissioner to censure. If the 
former, it argues unfitness for the position ; if the latter, it shows the 
administration of the Commission to have been unworthy of public con- 
fidence. On the reorganization of the Commission by the appointment 
of Eoosevelt and Thompson the investigation into the abuses and the 
irregularities iu the Milwaukee post-office was had at once and was 
thorough. 

With regard to the conduct of the Civil Service Commissioners in the 
matters submitted to your committee for investigation we find, first, 
that Commissioners Roosevelt and Thompson have discharged their 
duties with entire fidelity and integrity, second, that the official con- 
duct of Commissioner Lyman has been characterized by laxity of dis- 
cipline in the administration of the affairs of the Commission and is 
therefore censurable. 

Your committee will proceed at once to investigate the workings of 
the system and present a subsequent report when said investigation 
shall have been completed together with a report of their conclusions. 

We submit the following resolution: 

Resolved, That a copy of the report and testimony taken before the 
Select Committee on Eeform in the Civil Service in the investigation 
of charges preferred against the United States Civil Service Commis- 
sion be forwarded to the President. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



Committee on Ebform in the Civil Service, 

Wednesday, February 19, 1890. 

The Committf'e on Eeform in the Civil Service, having been author- 
ized and directed by the House, under resolution of January 27, 1890, 
to investigate all charges against the United States Civil Service Com- 
mission and the practical workings and results generally of the civil 
service law, met at 7 o'clock this evening, Mr. Lehlbach (chairman) pre- 
siding. 

Hon. Hamilton G. Ewart, and Hon. Frank Hatton of the Washington 
Post, were present and prosecuted the investigation of charges against 
the present Civil Service Commissioners, Charles Lyman, Theodore 
Koosevelt, and Hugh S. Thompson. The following charges were pre- 
sented : 

The following charges are preferred against the Civil Service Commission as now 
constituted, consisting of Messrs. Lyman, Eoosevelt, and Thompson, viz : 

1. That on the day of Ai^ril, 1889, without authority of law, Charles Lyman, 

when acting as sole Commissioner of the said Commission, promoted one Alexander 
C. Campbell, a brother-in-law of the said Charles Lyman, to a $1,200 clerkship in the 
Civil Service Commission. 

2. That the said Alexander C. Campbell, about the mouth of January, 1888, had 
secretly abstracted from the files of the Secretary's division a list of questions that 
had been used in the examination of applicants for positions in the departmental 
service, and gave them to a copyist in the Pension Office, preparing for promotion 
to the position of clerk, who turned them over to one Flynn, principal of the Ivy In- 
stitute, of this city. 

3. That the promotion of the said Campbell was made by the said Charles Lyman, 
Commissioner as aforesaid, with the full knowledge that the said Campbell had ab- 
stracted these questions from the files of the Secretary's diAusion. 

4. That on the appointment of Theodore Roosevelt and Hugh S. Thompson as Com- 
missioners, the attention of the said Commissioners was called to the fact of Camp- 
bell's abstraction of examination questions, but that the said Commissioners refused 
to investigate the matter any further than to examine the party charged with the 
offense and the Secretary of the Commission, who stated that he (Campbell) had 
been investigated and censured for the offense. 

5. That the said Alexander C. Campbell is still illegally retained as a clerk in the 
said Civil Service Commission. 

It is further charged against the Commission as now constituted — 
That one Edwin D. Bailey, in violation of the civil service law, which inhibits 
the promotion of j)ersons in the classified service until examination, was promoted 
by the Commission without any examination to test his fitness, as required by law, 
from a clerkship to the i^osition of stenographer, an important place in the said Com- 
mission, when it was notoriously known at the time that the saidBailey was not com- 
petent to fill the said position of stenographer. 

2. That this promotion was made when there were several other clerks in the said 
Commission who were expert stenographers, and, under the principle governing 
promotions, undoubtedly entitled to the said position. 

It is further charged against the Commission as now constituted — 
That with the knowledge of its members, on the I9th day of September, 1889, 
Xbomas Mitchell, of CoBuectici;t; wasappowte^ to a positioja i)) th^i |*epiou Office, as 



2 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

a copyist ; that the said Mitchell was ou September 30, 1887, dismissed from the ser- 
vice/or catise ; that the said Mitchell failed in his examination held prior to his last 
appointment, and that this failure becoming known to the parties desiring his restora- 
tion to the service, his iiapers were re-marked and he was raised from the ineligible 
to the eligible list. 

It is further charged against the Commission as now constituted — 

That Theodore Roosevelt, a member of the Commission, secured the appointment 
of one Hamilton Shidy to a place in the Census Bureau, when it was notoriously 
known to the said Roosevelt that the said Shidy, an officer of the Civil Service Com- 
mission as secretary of the board of local examiners of the post-office at Milwaukee, 
had persistently and repeatedly violated his oath of office in making false certifi- 
cations and in not reporting violations of the civil service law by the postmaster at 
Milwaukee to the Commission at Washington. 

That this action on Roosevelt's part was made with the full knowledge and con- 
sent of the other members of the Commission. 

It is further charged that the Civil Service Commission, since its organization to 
the present time, has, by the manipulation of the rules and regulations, brought about 
results in violation of the spirit and the letter of the law. 

2. That by collusion with departmental officers, appointments have been made in 
violation of the " merit system, " as provided by the law, and that favorites have se- 
cured places with little reference to their qualilications. 

3. That persons, relatives of officers of the Commission, have been attached to the 
Commission, gaining a knowledge of the secrets of the Commission, handling the re- 
cords of the Government — a privilege denied Senators and Representatives — without 
compensation and in direct violation of law. 

4. That offenses which resulted in the dismissal of officers of one political party 
were condoned when committed by officers of the other political party. 



TESTIMONY OF CHARLES LYMAN. 

Mr. Charles Lyman, sworn and examined. 

Mr. EwAET. Before Mr. Lyman is examined I would like to intro- 
duce a copy of a letter from Mr. A. P. Edgerton : 

Willard's Hotel, Washington, April 24, 1889. 
To the President: 

Referring to my note to you of April 20, and to your request through Secretary 
Halford that I should send to you in writing the information referred to, I now do so, 
stating that I was put in possession of it only on the evening before my note was 
written. 

The case is this, and it shows that watchfulness is a necessity to exact justice in 
all civil service matters, and that where wrong-doing is brought to light, it should 
not be condoned by retention in office. 

Mr. Campbell, a clerk in the Commission, and a brother-in-law to Commissioner 
Lyman, several months ago when Mr. Oherly and Mr. Lyman were both members of 
the Commission, copied a set of examination j)apers prepared for an examination and 
gave them to a friend, Mrs. Isabella Smith, who sold them for $25 to a Mr. Flynn, 
the p^'incipal of the Ivy Institute in this city. The x>aper8 came into the possession 
of a Miss Dabney, who went to the Commission to ascertain if they were the ques- 
tions to be used at the examination. Investigation showed that the papers were in 
the handwriting of Mr. Campbell, but the result of the investigation was his reten- 
tion in office by Commissioners Oberly and Lyman, because disclosures would have 
an injurious effect upon his sister, Mrs. Lyman. Mr. Campbell has since, and re- 
cently, been promoted by Commissioner Lyman, sole Commissioner, from $1,000 to a 
|1,200 salary. 

There are matters connected with the office of chief examiner which would not bear 
a close examination, and to such an extent are they known that the integrity of ex- 
aminations is questioned. There is altogether too much left to the discretion of the 
Commission, for through regulations which the Commission itself has power to make 
and by simple orders and varying opinions almost any desired result can be secured. 

I do not give you this information for the purpose of inviting any action upon it, 
but that you may be advised that there are ways of wrong-doing it is well for the 
President to understand. 
Very respectfully, 

A. P. Edgerton. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 3 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Please state your name, and official occupation. — A. My name is 
Charles Lyman; I am president of the Civil Service Commission. 

Q. How long have you been connected with the Commission ■? — A. 
Since shortly after its organization in 1883. 

Q. In what State do you reside? — A. Connecticut. 

Q. What is your political status? — A. What am I to understand by 
that question. 

Q. What is your political party? — A. I am a Eepublican. 

Q. Did you cast your vote at the last Presidential election ? — A. I did. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Alexander C. Campbell ! — A. 1 am. 

Q. What relation is he to you ? — A. He is my wife's brother. 

Q. When was he employed by the Commission? — A. I think in 1885. 

Q. In what capacity ?— A. As laborer. 

Q. Was he required to pass any examination when he was first em- 
ployed by the Commission ? — A. He did not pass an examination before 
he entered the service of the Commission. He had however, passed an 
examination by the Commission, and was at that time on the eligible 
list. 

Q. When was he promoted to the position he now holds ? — A. I can 
not state from memory the precise date ; but I have a memorandum in 
my pocket, if I may be permitted to refer to it. 

Mr. EwART. Certainly. 

The Witness (after referring to memorandum). From this, I see 
that the date of his last promotion was April 2, 1889. 

Q. What was the date of his first promotion ? — A. I think I have 
the date of his first promotion, but it is not far from the 1st of July, 
1886. I do not give that as the precise date, but it was near that time. 

Q. Who constituted the Commission when Mr. Campbell was pro- 
moted?— A. The first time? 

Q. At the time he was promoted, who constituted the Commission ? — 
A. I think the Commission at that time was Mr. Edgerton, Mr. Oberly, 
and myself. 

Q. That was when he was first appointed ? — A. When he was first 
appointed, the Commission consisted of Mr, Eaton, Mr. Gregory, and 
Judge Thoman. 

Q. Can you say as to whether or not he was promoted when you were 
the sole Commissioner ? — A. Yes, sir ; he was. 

Q. What was the date ? — A. I have given it as April 2, 1889. 

Q. Was he required to pass any examination at that time ? — A. He 
was not. 

Q. W^hy not? — A. The civil-service rules which apply to the office of 
the Civil Service Commission, did not require an examination for pro- 
motion, and it has not been the practice of the Commissfon to require 
any examination for promotion in any case, the promotions being made 
on the personal knowledge of the Commissioners as to the qualifications 
of the person promoted. 

Q. Is that the case now ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever seen the handwriting of Mr. Campbell? — A. I 
have. 

Q. You are familiar with it? — A. I am. 

Q. Was it ever called to your attention as a Commissioner, that at 
any time when Mr. Campbell was clerk, that the examination questions 
were improperly furnished to any outside parties ?— A. It was called to 
my attention when I was Commissioner, that examination questions, 



4 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

believed to be questions of the Commission, had been furnished to an 
outside party. 

Q. I will ask yon to give, as near as you can, the exact date when 
this matter was first called to your attention, and by whom? — A. I am 
not able to state the precise date, but apjDroximately, I should say the 
date was in January or February, 1888. 

Q. By whom was your attention called to it ? — A. By Mr. Oberly, 
then a Commissioner. 

Q. Will you state what Mr. Oberly said to you, and what your reply 
was 1 — A. Mr. Oberly handed me some ]3apers and stated in substance 
that the papers had come into his possession through a person whom 
he did not then name, and asked me if I would look at them and state 
whether I thought they were questions of the Commission. 

Q. What was your reply *? — A. After an examination of the questions, 
I said that I thought they were questions of the Commission. 

Q. .Do you recollect saying to Mr. Oberly on that occasion, that " who- 
ever the guilty party is, man or woman, he or she should be punished?" 
Did you use that language 1 — A. I do not remember the precise words 
which I used on that occasion. I did say something to this effect, that 
if the questions of the Commission were being given out by any one in 
the office of the Commission, it was a serious matter, and that the per- 
son who was guilty of giving out the questions should be punished. 

Q. In other words, whoever the guilty man or woman was, he or she 
should be punished ? — A. I say that 1 stated in substance what 1 have 
said, without pretending to recall the precise words, that if the questions 
given out were the questions which had not been used in an examina- 
tion (my remark referred to that state of things), it was a serious matter. 

Q. You made that remark before the questions were shown to you ? — 
A. I do not remember whether I made it before or after. 

Q. Your recollection is not clear upon that point ? — A. It is not per- 
fectly clear upon that point. 

Q. The list of questions was shown to you, was it not ? — A. The list 
of questions was shown to me. 

Q. At the same time was a copy-book or any book of record shown 
you? — A. No sir. 

Q. When you first saw the questions, in whose handwriting did they 
appear to be ? — A. The handwriting did not attract my attention at 
that time. I did not recognize the handwriting when I first saw the 
questions. 

Q. I understand you to say that you are perfectly familiar with the 
handwriting of Mr. Campbell ? — A. I am. 

Q. Was it in the day-time or the night ? — A. The day-time. 

Q. Did you make any examination of the list of questions ? — A. Yes, 
sir ; more especially with reference to determiuing in my mind whether 
they were i)repared in the office of the Commission. 

Q. Had you any suspicion that Mr. Campbell had written these ques- 
tions ? — A. I had not. 

Q. You did not notice the questions close enough to say whether or not 
the handwriting was that of Mr. Campbell ? — A. My mind was upon 
the questions themselves and not upon the handwriting. 1 did not pay 
attention to the handwriting. 

Q. Were you at all excited upon that occasion ?— A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you indignant at the party, when the list was shown you ? — 
A. I am not in the habit of getting excited ; I am not in the habit of 
showing it even when I feel so. I am more apt to be quiet thaw de- 
moostj^ative, 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 5 

Q, Being' perfectly cool on that occasion, do you recollect whether or 
not you asked Mr. Oberly whether he recognized the handwriting? — 
A. 1 have no recollection of having asked that question at the time. 

Q. Did you have any discussion on that point with Mr. Oberly "? — A. 
My recollection is that the question of the handwriting was not con- 
sidered at that meeting. 

Q. Did you suspect any one ? — A. My suspicions were not fastened 
upon any one in the office at that time. 

Q. How long after that was it before you discovered that the ques- 
tions were in Campbell's handwriting *? — A. I think the next day ; that 
is my recollection. 

Q. In what way did you make this discovery and by whom was your 
attention called to if? — A. Allow me to state connectedly what oc- 
curred. My recollection is, and I think I am positive in that recollec- 
tion, that I handed the questions to the chief examiner, with the request 
that he should examine the questions which had been prepared for the 
Commission and ascertain whether those were Commission questions or 
not, and what series of questions, whether they were new questions, or 
had not been used, and to report to me. It was ascertained that they 
were questions w4iich had been used by the Commission. 

Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Had been used or were to be used ? 

The Witness. Had been used. I so reported to Mr. Oberly. The 
pai)ers were then placed in the hands of the Secretary by Mr. Oberly 
with the request, as he stated to me (I did not hear this conversation), 
that he would compare them with the handwriting of the clerks in the 
office for the purpose of determining in whose handwriting they were. 
Soon after that, just how long I do not remember, Mr. Doyle brought 
the papers to me and attracted my attention to the handwriting, and 
stated that he had no doubt as to whose handwriting it was ; and, upon 
inspection of the papers with reference to the handwriting, I myself 
had no doubt in whose handwriting the papers were. 

By Mr. EwART : 

Q. Please state to the committee what Mr. Oberly said to you when 
he ascertained the fact that the questions were in the handwriting of 
Mr. Campbell. — A. If you will put the question in another form I can 
state the facts better ; if you will ask me what I said to Mr. Oberly. 

Q. I will ask you, then, what you said to Mr. Oberly and what reply 
he made to you ? — A. I told Mr. Oberly that they were in the hand- 
writing of Mr. Campbell ; that I was satisfied of that. I sent for Mr. 
Campbell. 

Q, Immediately? — A. Immediately; and had a conversation with 
him concerning those papers and repeated that conversation in sub- 
stance to Mr. Oberly, 

Q. In the course of that conversation, do you recollect Mr. Oberly 
using this language. Did he not say, " I leave you to reflect over this 
matter ? " — A. ISTo, sir ; he did not. 

Q. Did you not know, when you referred the case to Mr. Oberly, that 
the questions were in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell ? — A. At this 
time I knew they were. 

Q. When you referred the case to Mr. Oberly you knew the ques- 
tions were in Campbell's handwriting ? — A. A direct answer to your 
question might give a wrong impression as to the order of events. You 
remember that I stated that Mr. Oberly first called my attention to 
the matter that there were examination papers of that kind, and to de- 
termine whether they were questions of the Commission or not. That 



6 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 

they were afterwards referred to the chief examiner to settle that point, 
and that subsequently they came into the possession of Mr. Doyle, 
through Mr. Oberly, and came back to me from Mr. Doyle, the question 
of the handwriting having been determined. 

Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Who is Mr. Doyle ? 

The Witness. Secretary of the Commission. After the question of 
the handwriting had been determined, it was then that the j)apers 
were handed back by me to Mr. Oberly. 

By Mr. Ewart : 
Q. I understand that you sent for Mr. Campbell? — A. I did. 
Q. And Mr. Oberly was present ? — A. He was not. 
Q. I understood you to state a few moments ago that you sent for 
Mr. Campbell and he came "? — A. Mr. Oberly was not present. 
Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Is there objection to stating the interview ? 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Please state to the Committee exactly what occurred between 
yourself and Mr. Campbell. — A. I laid the papers before Mr. Campbell 
and asked him if he had ever seen them before. 

Q. You refer now to the examination papers? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. 
Campbell, after a brief examination of the pajjers, said that he had seen 
them before. I asked him if they were in his handwriting, he said they 
were. I think I said in substance this — I do not pretend to reproduce 
the precise words, but I think they are very nearly, if not exactly, the 
words which I used : " Campbell, this is a serious matter, and I do not 
know what will come of it 5 but I want you to tell me frankly the his- 
tory of these ijapers." 

Mr. Ewart. I would like to know whether the witness is giving his 
recollection of the matter exactly, or whether he is reading from a writ- 
ten memorandum. 

The Witness. I am stating the facts, Mr. Chairman, and I am refresh- 
ing my memory from a memorandum which I prepared some time ago. 

The Chairman. I understand that the witness is stating the facts. 

Mr. Butterworth. You are giving your independent recollection, 
after refreshing your memory 1 

The Witness. After refreshing my memory, I am giving my recol- 
lection. 

The Chairman. I do not think there is any objection to that. The 
witness is refreshing his memory. 

By Mr. Butterworth : 

Q. When was this memorandum prepared 1 — A. It was prepared some 
time last fall. 

Q. How long after these events took place of which you are speak- 
ing "? — A. I think in October last. 

Q. Does the paper give a complete record of what took place ? — A. It 
substantially gives a record of what took i)lace. 

Q. Do you rely upon what took place on an independent recollection 
of that matter ? — A. I rely upon an independent recollection of the mat- 
ter. I have used this memorandum. 

The Chairman. What were you going to sa,y1 

The Witness. I think I had finished the statement. The statement 
I was making was that I relied upon an independent recollection about 
these matters. After these charges were made I went over this matter, 
called up the facts to my mind, and carefully wrote out my recollection 
of those facts. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 7 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. I would like to ask this question : Do I understand the witness to 
say that he regarded this of sufficient importance to himself that at that 
time he made the memorandum ? — A. JSTot at that time. 

Q. Now, having made them several months afterwards, it does not 
occur to me, as a lawyer, nor do I believe it would to any lawyer, that 
a witness in court must speak from his recollection without consulting 
any memorandum as to dates and names. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. This memorandum was prepared in October last, and when was it 
you held this conversation ? — A. Probably ia January or February, 1888. 

Q. Then it was nearly two years afterwards ? — A. Very nearly two 
years afterwards. 

Q. Who prepared that memorandum ! — A. I prepared that paper. 

Q. How did you happen to prepare it ? — A. Because of the public 
statements in the newspapers concerning this matter. 

Q. With what view did you prepare it 1 — A. Am 1 required to answer 
that 1 

Mr. Stone. I do not insist upon it. 

A gentleman in the room. Answer it. 

The Witness. I prepared this paper for the information of the Presi- 
dent of the United States. 

Mr. Ewart. At his instance ? 

[So answer.] 

Mr. Ewart. I think this is inadmissible for him to read from a writ- 
ten memorandum. 

The Witness. I have no objection to stating my recollection without 
the memorandum. 

The Chairman. Suppose you give a history of how that memorandum 
was made, and what it was made for. 

The Witness. Mr. Campbell replied in substance this : " I wrote 
those papers for a lady, a friend of mine, a clerk in the Pension Office, 
who has some idea, at some time in the future, of taking an examina- 
tion for promotion. She asked me if I could assist her in any way in 
preparation for that examination. I told her I did not know of any 
way in which I could help her. What she wanted was something that 
would give her an idea of the general character of the questions that 
were asked in the examinations for promotion. I finally said that I 
might give her an old set of questions that had been used in former 
examinations, and that in their gej^eral features would embrace the 
same subjects that were embraced in the examinations for promotions. 
I therefore copied this set of papers and gave them to her with the 
understanding that when she looked them over they were to be de- 
stroyed. I know nothing of the papers since that time until you now 
show them to me. I supposed that they had been destroyed." 

Mr. Greenhalg-e. Were they printed ? 

The Witness. The questions then were printed. I said, " This mat- 
ter will have to be investigated. You tell me that these are the facts." 
He said, "Yes, they are the facts." 1 said, "This matter will have to 
be looked into, and I propose to have it investigated for the purpose of 
ascertaining whether you have told me the truth about these papers." 
I then took the papers to Mr. Oberly, and in substance repeated to him 
what had taken place between Campbell and myself, and said to Mr. 
Oberly : "These are the facts, as Campbell states them to me. In view 
of his relationship to me, I do not think it proper that I should conduct 



8 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

this investigation. I prefer that you should do it ; and my wish is that 
you should ascertain the exact facts, and find out just what there is in 
it." He took the papers, and at once began the investigation. I had 
no further connection with it until he had completed it, and reported to 
me what he had discovered. 

Mr. BiTTTERWOETH. Was the report in writing? 

The Witness. It was a verbal statement. That is all the conversa- 
tion that took j)lace. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Just before you had that conversation, was Mr. Oberly there? 
He was in the room a few minutes before? — A. Whether he was in the 
room a few moments before or not, I do not remember. I had seen him 
that morning. 

Q. When your attention was called to the fact that it was in Camp- 
bell's handwriting, as soon as Mr. Oberly left, you sent for Mr. Camp- 
bell? — A. I do not know that Mr. Oberly left that morning, i^othing 
took place between us. 

Q. How long after you had the conversation with Mr. Oberly was it 
until you satisfied yourself that the list of questions was in the hand- 
writing of Mr. Campbell, before you sent for Mr. Campbell ? — A. I did 
not become satisfied of it in consequence of any conversation with Mr. 
Oberly. The conversation with Mr. Oberly occurred on the afternoon 
or on the morning of the next day. 

Q. At the time that you had the conversation with Mr. Oberly you 
knew that the questions were in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell ? — 
A. I do not know. 1 have stated that I became convinced of that fact 
when the papers were brought to me by Mr. Doyle on the morning after 
the conversation with Mr. Oberly. 

Mr. Butterworth. Before you saw Mr. Campbell ? 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. When you referred the matter to Mr. Oberly, you knew positively 
that the questions were in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell ? — A. I did. 

Q. You say the questions were obsolete, or that Mr. Campbell told 
you they were obsolete ? 

Mr. Greenhalge. He said they were an old set. 

The Witness. They were questions that had been used in a former 
examination. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Mr. Campbell in this conversation told you, in explanation of his 
giving these questions to this lady in the Pension Bureau, that they 
would i^robably be of some advantage to her in an examination to be 
held at some subsequent date ? — A. It was to give her a general idea 
of the questions that might arise. I suppose the general character of 
the questions. 

Q. Did he mention the name of this lady ? — A. He did. 

Q. She had a position, and desired a position in some other bureau? — 
A. No, sir. She had been ajDpointed in the Pension Office upon an 
examination. 

Q. And desired promotion? — A. Her iDurpose was to obtain promotion 
at some time in the future. 

Q. And to aid her Mr. Campbell had furnished her this list of ques- 
tions ? — A. He had given her this list of questions, as they stated to 
me, because they might afford her a general idea of the general scojie 
of the examination. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. » 

Q. Did Mr. Campbell state how lie got possession of the examination 
papers'? — A. He did not. I did not ask him how he got the questions. 
I was satisfied that they were questions of the Commission. I had no 
doubt of that. 

Q. You did not ask him whether or not he took them from the files'? — 
A. I did not. 

Q. Was it not a very improper thing for any employ^ in any Depart- 
ment or In the Civil-Service Commission to take questions from the 
files and give them to outside parties '? — A. I should say it was a serious 
breach of discipline. 

Q. It was such a serious breach of discipline as would cause you to 
dismiss any employe whom you found guilty of such an act. In other 
words, do you not consider the taking of those questions from the files 
a very disreputable act *? — A. I think such a characterization of it as I 
have given, it properly deserves. I think it was a serious breach of 
discipline. 

Q. Then you think the taking of questions from the files and letting 
outside parties have them with a view of enabling them to post them- 
selves for an examination to be held at some subsequent date was only 
a breach of discipline '? — A. I have answered that question. 

Q. Would you regard it as an offense calling for punishment ? — A. I 
regarded it as an offense calling for punishment. 

Q. Is this the view the present Commission would take of if? — A. 
The other Commissioners are present and they can speak for them- 
selves. 

Q. Was this breach of discipline, as you characterize it, followed by 
any punishment ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the punishment? — A. A reprimand. 

Q. That was all ? — A. That was all, except the suffering imposed upon 
the young man in consequence of his act. 

Q. How long after the reprimand did the promotion follow"? — A. 
Something over a year, I think. 

Q. I will ask you this question : At what time was the rule altered 
changing the age from eighteen to twenty ? — A. The 1st of March, 1888, 
I think. ' 

• Q. Before that rule went into effect did any connection or relative of 
yours make any application for any position in any bureau ? — A. I sup- 
l)ose I know what you want, and, if you will allow me to state the rule 
without questions, I have not the slightest objection to telling it. My 
daughter some time before that (I do not remember the date) filed an 
application for examination and subsequently took an examination, 
which she passed, and her name was entered upon the eligible list of 
the Commission. 

Mr. Stone. What date was that "? 

The Witness. I think the rule was changed on the 1st of March 
1888. 

By Mr. Geeenhalgb : 

Q. What was the date of the application ? — A. I can not state 
the date of the application, but my recollection is that the date was 
some time before the change of the rule. Let me state all the facts. 

Q. How long was the rule made before it went into effect '? — A. I think 
two or three weeks, probably. 

Q. Fot longer than that ? — A. That is my recollection. 

Mr. Butterworth. Is there a charge or suggestion that there was 
any irregularity'? 



10 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

The Witness. There was an iusinuation in the Post to that effect. 

Mr. G-REENHALG-E. Insinuations are not charges. 

The Witness. I want to state the facts about this case. 

Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Unless some irregularity is suggested, there is 
no reason for it. I have no objection. 

The Witness. My daughter made application for examination at a 
time when she had a right to make that application. She made it on 
her own motion and without any suggestion from me. She was not then 
twenty years of age, but the application was filed before the change of 
the rule. The Commission held, and has always held, that the filing of 
an application is the beginning of the examination. The actual written 
examination did not take place until after the change of the rule which 
fixed the limit at twenty years of age, it having previously been eighteen. 
But under a rule, made long before that, she was allowed to take the ex- 
amination notwithstanding that she was not then twenty years of age. 
Several other cases of the same sort occurred at the same time. 

By Mr. EwART : 

Q. The application was made before the rule was changed and before 
it went into effect*?— A. Yes, sir. I could not give the date. 

Q. Have you any memorandum of it ? A. No, sir; it would not make 
any difference whether the rule were changed or what time it went into 
effect. The rule went into effect on the 1st day of March, and any appli- 
cation filed by any person prior to that date would have been good. 

Q. Did she receive an appointment before the expiration of the 
year 1— A. She did not. 

Q. Was she re-examined before the expiration of the year? — A. 
About the time of the expiration of the year. I do not remember the 
precise date. 

Q. Why before the end of the year ? A. I do not know whether it 
was before or after the expiration of the year. 

Q. Was her name placed on the eligible list a second time? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Who composed the Commission then ? — A. I think I was the only 
member of the Commission. 

Q. At the time she passed the last examination you were the acting 
Commission 1 — A. Her case was not the only case of that sort. If gen- 
tlemen desire to make favoritism out of that they will have to look 
pretty close. It was done in this case and it would have been done in 
other cases. 

Q. Do you know a party by the name of Charles McCaffery, clerk in 
the city post-office ? — A. I do not know that I do. 

Q. Do you recall that he made application for examination °? — A. I 
do not. 

Q. Do you know whether he made any application ? — A. I have no 
recollection of ever having heard the name. 

Q. Do you know of an instance of this kind, or can you recall an in- 
stance, where a party by the name of McCaffery was examined and it 
turned out that it was some other party and that his name was not 
McCaffery *? — A. I have heard of cases of substitution. I have heard 
of such cases, where one person took an examination for another. 

Q. You know of no instance of that kind, except as you have heard 
of it ? — A. One or two instances occurred in New York. 

Q. Do you know of any instances that occurred in Washington ? — A. 
I do not recall any in Washington. 

Mr. Greenhalge. I would like to know whether the questions which 
are propounded to the various applicants are j)rinted ? 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 11 

The Witness. They are. 

Q. You have a set of questions which are printed ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q,. And submitted to the applicants ? IsTow, after an examination has 
taken place, what becomes of those questions ?— A. The questions are 
not again used. That is the rule of the Commission, that a set of ques- 
tions once prepared and used for an examination then becomes obsolete, 
and the Commission, I may state, now publishes these questions, after 
they have been used, for the information of the public. 

Q. Is there any secrecy about questions which have been propounded 
in a given year, after they have been propounded and the examination 
has taken place %—A. Absolutely no secret. 

By Mr. Ewart : 
Q. If there is absolutely no secret, why should it be considered a 
breach of discipline to take them away ?— A. To take out any set of 
papers would be a breach of discipline. 

By Mr. Boatnbe, : 

Q. I understand you to say that after your interview with Mr. Camp- 
bell, before he acknowledged that he had furnished these papers, you 
turned the matter over to Mr. Oberly ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were there three members of the Commission at that time ?— A. 
There were. 

Q. Was Mr. Campbell's action considered by you, or taken care of by 
other members of the Commission ?— A. It was investigated by Mr. 
Oberly. 

Q. Was Mr. Campbell reprimanded ? — A. He was. 

Q. What I want to get at is, whether or not you acted upon the matter, 
or whether you turned it over to your associates on the Commission? — 
A. I turned over the investigation to Mr. Oberly, then Commissioner, 
and Mr. Oberly, in the absence of Mr. Edgerton, conducted the inves- 
tigation. The question was asked as to what had taken place when 
Mr. Oberly returned the finding to me and with the permission of the 
committee I will state it. Mr. Oberly reported to me the state of facts, 
which corresponded substantially with Campbell's statement to me. 
He stated that he had examined the lady in question separately, and 
'that he had examined Campbell separately; that he brought the two 
together, and questioned them together, and that he had seen the lady 
who obtained the questions from Mr. Flynn ; that he had probed the 
matter, as he believed, to the bottom, and the statement which Camp- 
bell had originally made to me had been substantially confirmed, show- 
ing that Campbell had told me the truth about it at the start. He said, 
" My conclusion about it is, inasmuch as these questions were not ques- 
tions of the Commission to be used again, and the integrity of the 
Commission's examinations is in no manner touched by this matter, 
and as this lady obtained no information which she could have used, 
no one else had been wronged, and' no harm had been done, the offense 
is not a serious one, though it is a serious breach of discipline ; but it 
did not involve serious moral delinquency, and my judgment is that all 
that is necessary is to reprimand Mr. Campbell and drop the matter." 
I agreed with him in that conclusion, and that course was taken. 

By Mr. Ewart ; 

Q. What was the character of this reprimand, and where and how 
was it administered % — A. I do not remember the precise words used. 

Q. Was he called up before the Commission and reprimanded? — 
A. My recollection is that it was done by Mr. Oberly. 



12 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Do you recollect his words'? — A. I do not remember the words 
used. 

Q. It was such as to impress Mr. Campbell that the matter must 
not occur again, as it was a gross breach of discipline "? — A. A serious 
breach of discipline. 

By Mr. Butteewoeth : 

Q. By whom are these questions prepared ? — A. They are prepared 
under the direction of the chief examiner. 

Q. By whom ? — A. They are prepared by a number of persons. A 
certain number are prepared by the examiners, and occasionally mem- 
bers of the Commission prepare questions. I have prepared them 
myself. 

Q. What I desire to know is this : For instance, a gentleman applies 
to be appointed in the Treasury Department or the Pension Office: 
are questions prepared by the members of the Commission or by the 
clerks under them, or are they prepared outside 1 — A. Questions for 
the general examinations of the Commission, those of a non-technical 
character, are prepared in the office of the Commission. Many of the 
technical questions are prepared there ; but for certain classes of ex- 
aminations a number of questions are prepared by the particular offi- 
cer that has to do with those examinations. 

Q. The questions in the main are prepared either by the Commission 
or by heads of bureaus'? — A. Yes, sir. All questions are submitted 
to the Commission for approval before being adopted. 

Q. Are any questions prepared by any persons not connected with 
your bureau ? — A. Ko, sir. 

Q. How many persons are connected with the preparation of ques- 
tions — I do not want a schedule — say from a dozen or half a dozen '? — 
A. I should say six or eight are connected with the office of the Com- 
mission. Then other questions are prepared by the board of examiners 
that are not in tbe office of the Commission, but work under the direc- 
tions of,, and are responsible to, the Commission. 

Q. Where are those persons ; are they in Washington "? — A. In the 
boards of the eleven custom-house districts, and there are local boards 
of examiners at each. Most of the questions are prepared in tbe office 
of the Commission. The same is true of the questions used in the post- 
office examinations. There are now forty-four classified post-offices, 
and the questions used in all these post-offices are prepared in the office 
of the Commission, except as to the locality in the States where the 
examinations are to be held. 

Q. Under the supervision of the Commission? — A. Always. 

Q. How is it with reference to the questions to be propounded here 
,in Washington '? — A. They are prepared generally in the office of the 
Commission by those acting under the directions of the Commission. 

Q. How long prior to this are the questions prepared ? — A. Long 
enough to admit of their being printed; sometimes it is very close. 

Q. Are they ever used more than once'? — A. In exceptional cases 
they are used more than once ; but as a rule, no. 

Q. Illustrate what you mean by " exceptional cases." — A. I mean 
this : Under a general examination the questions are never repeated, 
but I dare say that a set might be used which had previously been used 
if we were satisfied that the person never had any opportunity of seeing 
them. 

Q. What disposition is made of them after you get through '?— A. 
We keep them for sometime ; and those that are of any consequence or 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 13 

that may give no information are destroyed. The reason for destroy- 
ing them is that if they were cut np and made into tablets for reasons 
of economy they might get scattered around and might excite sus- 
picion. 

Q. Where are they printed ?— A. In the printing ofBce of the De- 
partment of the Interior, which is a branch of the Government Print- 
ing Office. 

Q. You print different sets of questions for each grade ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The lowest being whatf — A. The copyist's grade; one grade 
lower is that of printers' assistants in the Bureau of Engraving and 
Printing. 

Q. How long have you been connected with the Commission ? — A. 
Since its organiz^ation ; first, as chief examiner. 

Q. Are you able to, or will you, supply the committee with a list of 
the questions used at examinations during the last two or three years 
of the different grades 1 — A. You mean the questions '? 

Q. I mean copies of the questions f- — A. Certainly. 

Q. And indicate to what grade they belong ? — A. The questions are 
headed so as to show that. 

Mr. BoATNER. Are not the questions preserved for sometime ? 

The Witness. Questions used by the applicant and the answers are 
always preserved. 

By Mr. Butterworth: 

Q. Have you in any wise changed or modified the system within a 
year or two f — A. The system is undergoing evolutions constantly. 

Q. What is the nature of the evolutions "? — A. You mean as to the 
character of the examinations"? 

Q. Yes, sir. — A. The whole question of the state of the Departments, 
the needs of the service, and the adaptation of the questions to the 
general scheme and requirements. 

Q. Is there any effort made on the part of the Commission to so pre- 
pare questions as to determine whether the applicant is fit for the par- 
ticular duty he is called upon to discharge '? — A. It is the object the 
Commission has in view. It has no other object in view. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. Are the questions for the several Departments, the Interior and the 
State, War and Navy, and the Agricultural Department, not the same? 
— A. The clerks' and copyists' questions are the same for every Depart- 
ment, except the Department of State. Examinations for the Depart- 
ment of State have more especial reference to the requirements of that 
Department, in addition to the general subject embraced in the exaoi- 
inations for the other Departments. They contain questions in inter- 
national law and diplomatic history, and also in gCMcral geography. 
The regular examinations are confined to the United States. 

Q. What you call "clerks' examinations" include the eligible places 
by subsequent promotion up to $1,800 ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Greenhalge. When examiners start out on a work 

The Chairman. I would like to call attention to the fact, before go- 
ing into those outside questions, that the committee have decided to 
examine, first, the charges against the present Commission ; second, the 
charges against prior Commissions, and then as to the general method 
of proceeding, going into the questions of the workings of the Oom- 
laission, 



14 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By Mr. Butterwoeth : 

Q. How long had Campbell been in the employ of the Commission? — 
A. I think since 1885. 

Q. What were his duties ? — A. He was then appointed as a laborer, 
but the Commission has never been able to use a laborer as such. The 
duties were clerical, and have always been so. 

Q. I understand the Commission itself, in the matter of making pro- 
motions, is not controlled by the law in force and applicable to the other 
Bureaus and Departments'?— A. The Commission did not require ex- 
aminations for promotions in the Commission. The rules for promotion 
have been applied to the War Department only. 

Q. In the matter of the promotion of Mr. Campbell, was it in ac- 
cordance with the rules ? — A. It was in accordance with the rules. Ee 
has done his work under the immediate supervision of the Commission, 
and under their daily supervision. Perhaps I do not make myself per- 
fectly understood on one point. I think I said in answer to a question 
here of Mr. Butterworth, or Mr. Greenhalge, that after the questions 
have been once used, they are never used afterwards. That is now the 
practice, but it has not always been the practice. Ther-© have been 
times in the history of the Commission when it was not practicable to 
have new questions for every examination. 
By Mr. Greenhalge : 

Q. What year was that ? — A. That year was 1888. 
By Mr. Butterworth : 

Q. Is there anything else in reference to the Campbell matter that 
you desire to state ? — A. I do not know that I have anything else to 
state. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. You say that the promotion of Campbell was not an unusual 
thing. I would ask you this question : were there other employes in 
your Bureau who were equally as competent as Mr. Campbell ? — A. Oh, 
yes. 

Q. Had any of them been guilty of any breach of discipline '? — A. 
Not of a similar kind ; but we have breaches of discipline occasionally. 

Q. But none as serious as the abstraction of examination papers 
from the files ?— A. I think not. 

Q. How do you exx3lain why other parties were not promoted ? — A. 
They were promoted. Allow me to state that the Commission exer- 
cises its best judgment as to promotions, the first consideration being 
seniority, then other considerations, such as questions of fitness, adapt- 
ability to this kind of work, or that, and then the exigencies of the 
office are considered. He was next in line of promotion, and a failure 
to have promoted him at that time would have been a marked thing. 
In my judgment (and I say it wholly independent of his relationship 
to me) it would have been an outrage not to have promoted him. 

Q. E"ot with standing this breach of discipline? — A. A punishment 
for that oifense was meted out at the time. 

Q. What constituted that reprimand ? — A. That, in the judgment of 
the persons concerned, was sufficient punishment for that oifense at 
that time. It was not considered necessary to continue to pursue him 
ever afterwards. 

By Mr. Butterworth : 
Q. Was this matter, with reference to Mr. Campbell, called to the at- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 15 

tention of the full Board ?— A. I do not know whether Mr. Edgerton's 
attention was called to it or not. I have reason to believe 

Q. Was there any criticism of your course in that matter in the Board? 
A. ¥0, sir; 1 never heard criticism on that until I read this Edgerton 
matter in print. 

Q. Did you meet in full Board afterwards? — A. We met for nearly a 
year afterwards, almost daily, when the Commissioners were in the 
city. 

Q. And you never heard of it ? — A. The matter never was mentioned 
at any meeting of the Commission afterwards, to my knowledge. 

Mr. EwART. You were the sole Commissioner at that time ? 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BuTTEKWOETH. It seems that these questions passed into the 
hands of some gentleuian named Flynn, who sold them for a money 
consideration. 

The Witness. I do not think he sold them for a money considera- 
tion; but, on the other hand, his statement was that they had not been 
sold. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. How old is Mr. Campbell ? — A. I think he is about forty-eight or 
fort3^-nine years old; I think that is about his age. 

Q. What was your connection with the Commission at the time he 
first entered the service? — A. I was chief examiner. 

Q. How did .Mr. Campbell happen to be employed as a laborer ; at 
whose instance? — A, I believe the facts are something like this: The 
Commission always having more work than workers, needed some extra 
assistance when they were located in the Agricultural Department, and 
the Commission asked the Commissioner of Agriculture to loan them 
somebody to help them. Mr. Campbell had been employed in a sub- 
ordinate position in the Agricultural Department, and he was sent to 
the Commission by the Commissioner of Agriculture, and assigned to 
temporary duty as a per diem clerk. He remained there until Congress 
appropriated for a laborer for the Commission, and then the Commission 
appointed him to that place. I had no agency in his getting into the 
Commission, nor in his appointment. I was absent at the time he was 
detailed to assist the Commission. I had no agency in it. 

Q. Were his duties at first those of a clerk ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But he was there as a laborer ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What salary did he receive ? — A. He was paid by the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. 

Q. Was he a clerk in the Department of Agriculture? — A. He was 
employed in the seed division at that time. 

Q. Had he made application for examination ? — A. He had made ap- 
plication, had been examined, and was on the eligible register. 

Q. How long was it before he was appointed ? — A. I think he was 
appointed in July. That was in March or April, and the appropriation 
which provided for a laborer took eifect on the 1st of July, and he was 
shortly afterwards appointed to that place. 

Q. You were the sole Commissioner at that time ? — A. I was not. 

By Mr. Ewakt : 

Q. By whom was he examined ? — A. By the Commission. 

Q. By whom was his examination conducted? — A. I can not recall 
whether it was by the chief examiner, or whether it was conducted by 
some other person. 



16 CIVIL HEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Is there any memorauduin of it ? — A. I might find one by getting 
the papers. Let me make this statement, that I never participate in 
the marking of the examination papers. 

Mr. BuTTERWOETH. Explain how examinations are conducted. 

The Witness. Examinations were at that time generally conducted 
by the chief examiner when he was present in Washington. The papers 
are printed, and the applicants are seated in the room, sheets are given 
out to them, the questions are answered in writing, and the sheets are 
turned in at the desk and turned over to a number of examiners for 
marking. The applicant is not permitted to put his name on any but 
the declaration sheet. That sheet is inclosed by him in an envelope, 
which he seals. The practice is to retain them in that condition until 
the papers are graded. In the process of marking the only identifica- 
tion of papers is a number. 

Mr. Stone. The questions I was asking a moment ago were intended 
to reach not only the facts connected with this particular charge, but 
to develop the method of this Commissioner himself; that is, his public 
acts as a Commissioner. 

The Witness. I am perfectly willing to go into that. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. If you were present and superintended the examination of Mr. 
Campbell, it was conducted in this way, as you have indicated, by giv- 
ing him some printed questions'? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He wrote out the answers on the same paper, folded them, and 
sealed them "? — A. No, sir. 

Q. What did he do with the paper when he completed it ? — A. The 
paper came back to the examiners. The written answers to the ques- 
tions came back to the desk. The paper that was folded and placed 
in the envelope is what is known as a declaration. The name of the 
candidate is inclosed in another envelope and does not appear except 
by the other papers. 

Q. What becomes of the, examination papers ? — A. They pass into 
the hands of the people who mark them. 

Q. Did you turn them over to the markers ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you the direct question whether you remember seeing 
those papers after that examination was completed and before Mr. 
Campbell's grade was fixed ? — A. I have no recollection of ever having 
seen those i^apers. 

Q. Do you know who the markers were who examined those papers? — 
A. I do not. 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with any of them about if? — 
A. No, sir ; I have no recollection of any conversation with the mark- 
ers about those papers. 

Q. Was Mr. Campbell appointed under this examination before you 
went on the board ? — A. He was not appointed under an examination. 
He was simply appointed as a laborer in the office, which did not require 
an examination. The office of the Commission was not at that time 
a classified office. Appointments might have been made in the office 
of the Commission to any grade without examination. The office was 
not classified until afterwards. 

Q. What was the salary of Mr. Campbell when he was first em- 
ployed ? — A. He was a laborer at $660 a year. 

Q. I mean when he was first employed as a clerk.— A. Nine hundred 
dollars. 

Q. What was the salary of the office to wbicli he was Ksubsequeutly 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 17 

Q. Is he in the service now ? — A. Yes, sir ; at $1,200 a year. 

Q. Then he was promoted three times ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was the last appointment "? — A. 1 think it was the 2d of 
April, 1889. That was the promotion made by me when I was the sole 
Commissioner, 

Q. How was it discovered that these papers about which Mr. Ewart 
questioned you, had been furnished to this lady, or whoever they were 
furnished to? — A. I think the lady brought the information to Mr. 
Oberly that she had reasons to believe Mr. Flynn had in his possession 
certain questions of the Commission. 

Q. This charge, as I remember, states that Mr. Campbell sold these 
papers to some one. Do you know anything about that f — A. He de- 
nies that he sold them, and the investigation did not show that he sold 
them. 

Q. What was the name of the lady receiving them ? — A. Mrs. Smith. 

Q. Was she examined by any of you in regard to it*?- — A. She was 
examined by Mr. Oberly. 

Q. Bid she take an examination soon after that ? — A. 'No, sir. 

Q. Has she ever taken one since f — A. ISTo, sir. 

Mr. Ewart. Has she been promoted since ? 

The Witness. I think she was. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Did Mr. Flynn subsequently state, or at any time state, to you 
or any member of the Commission that he did not purchase the ques- 
tions ? — A. I have never seen Mr. Flynn. 

Q. Did he write letters to that effect ?— A. I have seen it published 
that there was no consideration whatever paid. 

Q. I understand you to say that your daughter was eighteen years of 
age when she made application for examination? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that the minimum limit was eighteen years of age ? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q, And you afterwards changed the rules so as to make the minimum 
twenty years ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. She was not examined until after you made that change *? — A. I 
think not. 

Q. You say the Commission has ruled that where an application 
is filed, that would establish a right in an applicant to any benefits 
under the rules at that time"? — A. Yes, sir. In other words, the rules 
are not retroactive ; that the applicant was legally entitled to file an 
application at the time it Msas filed. 

Q. If you had a rule fixing the minimum age at eighteen, and a per- 
son examined was put upon the original list under those rules, and sub- 
sequently the rules were changed so that no person should be appointed 
under the civil-service rules who was under twenty years of age, would 
that person be eligible to appointment? — A. We have so construed it. I 
want to give you the theory of the law adopted by the Commission. 
An examination is in three parts, the application, the written examina- 
tion, and the period of probation, and after the probationary period a 
permanent appointment. When an application is filed the examination 
is taken by the applicant in accordance with the requirements of the 
rules. 

Q. Has your daughter been appointed ? — A. No, sir. 
3117 2 



18 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



TESTIMONY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT. 

Theodore Eoosevelt sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Butterworth : 

Q. What do you know about this Campbell affair? — A. All I know is 
that some time early in the fall — I have no memorandum with which to 
refresh my recollection — but I should say 

Q. When did you become a member of the Commission ? — A. About 
May 10 last. 

Q. When did you first learn officially of this Campbell matter, and what 
do you know about it ? — A. About the 1st of October last — of course I 
can not give the date exactly — but about the 1st of October last there 
were two or three articles in the Washington Post concerning the conduct 
of Mr. Campbell, who was then charged with "stealing" examination 
papers and giving them out to some woman who wanted to pass an ex- 
amination. I think the articles first appeared as preliminary, and then 
grew to two or three columns on the subject. Mr. Lyman at the time 
was away ; I think he was making some investigations. It was early in 
October, and Governor Thompson and myself at first disbelieved the 
story, but on making some inquiry — I think of Mr. Doyle — we found that 
there was a foundation for it. We also found, for the first time, that Mr. 
Campbell was Mr. Lyman's brother-in-law. We had never known of 
that before, at least I had never known of it. We then examined Mr. 
Doyle, and summoned Mr. Campbell and Mr. Doyle (the secretary of th« 
Commission) before us, and also questioned Mr. Lyman as soon as he 
came back to the city. We found that the offense had been committed 
two years before or thereabouts, and that at the same time the acting 
president of the Commission, Mr. Oberly, had carefully gone into the 
charges and had investigated the case and had decided that he should 
not ask for Mr. Campbell's dismissal , and the Commission had accord- 
ingly-retained him. 

We made up our minds that, whatever might be our personal judg- 
ment upon the equities of the case as far as we could get at them,^ 
we were not willing on secondary evidence two years after the event 
to reverse the decision of the Commission of two years before when it 
had all the facts before it. Governor Thompson and myself discussed 
the question at length on more than one day — I should say probably on 
five or six different occasions. Of course it annoyed us very much, 
and we could not get the story in a satisfactory shape so as to tell ex- 
actly what had happened. It was two years after the event. It was 
res adjudicata. We knew the custom was that one administration does 
not criticise the acts of a preceding one, and we w^ere reluctant, unless 
on the strongest evidence, to reverse the decision made by the previous 
Commission, and that previous administration of a different political 
faith, with primary evidence, while we would reverse on secondary evi- 
dence. We did not feel that we would be justified in adopting such a 
course. To dismiss Mr. Campbell would mean a severe retiection upon 
our colleague, and a much more serious reflection upon the gentleman 
who had investigated the case two years before, and who was the act- 
ing head of the Commission, Mr. Oberly, and we did not feel that we 
ought to take such action. Governor Thompson suggested to me, or I 
to him, that I should go home and write a statement of our views of 
the matter to be spread on the minutes, and that we should also urge 
Mr. Lyman to write down from recollection a full statement of the facts 



CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 1^ 

to be spread on the minutes. I was called back to my home at Oyster 
Bay, Long Island, where I wrote out a statement and submitted it to 
Governor Thompson. When I came back I found that the President 
had called for a full statement from Mr. Lyman, and we thought that^ 
that was a further reason why we should take no further action in the 
matter, and we did not spread our memorandum on the minutes. With 
the permission of the committee I will submit that memorandum, or 
would you like for me to read it 1 This is simply a rough draught of 
what we decided upon, but which was not used nor put on the min- 
utes : 

Oyster Bay, Long Island, Ocioher 14, 1889. 

Memorandum of course pursued by Governor Thompson and myself in reference to 
the Post's charges against Campbell. 

As soon as we heard of the charges, and found out that they had some basis, we 
called Campbell himself, and afterwards Doyle, before us, and later on questioned 
Mr. Lyman. We found that the offense was committed two years before ; that at 
the time Mr. Oberly, acting president of the Commission, had fully investigated it, 
and that, with all the evidence fresh before him, he had decided that it did not call 
for Campbell's dismissal, and had accordingly continued the latter in his position, 
with the express or implied approval of his colleague or colleagues. This was the 
first time that either Governor Thompson or myself had known that Campbell was 
Mr. Lyman's brother-in-law, or had known that there had been any charges against 
him. We decided that, whatever might be our opinion as to the original equities of 
the case, we could not venture to decide, on secondary evidence, two years after the 
event, about a matter which had already been adjudicated by the former acting 
head of the Commission, with all the facts fresh at his disposal. An adverse decision 
on our part would have been a condemnation of the entire old Commission, including 
that member of it who is at present our colleague. 

T. E. 

P. S. — November 23. — We were confirmed in our ideas as to the proper position to 
take by the fact that the President had requested from Mr. Lyman a full state- 
ment of the matter, which is now before him. 

(The first date was put down from memory at the time I wrote the appendix.) 

I have read this paper, and I concur in the statements. 

H. S. T. 

During the reading of the memorandum Mr. Eoosevelt made the fol- 
lowing explanation : 

I was present in Mr. Campbell's room when a former lady clerk of the 
Commission^! think Mrs. Lockhart — was in there speaking to him. As 
well as I can now recollect it, she said that Mr. Oberly had told her that he 
had told Mr. Edgertou of the matter and that Mr. Edgerton had pooh- 
poohed it. I do not know anything about that. 

Some weeks after writing the first part of this I added this about the 
President. Governor Thompson put on this paper: " I have read this 
paper, and I concur in the statement. H. S. T." 

Q. On the statement appearing in the daily press that the conduct 
of the Commissioners with reference to this action of Campbell was 
reprehensible, and on that being called to your attention the subject of 
making a suitable investigation seemed to you proper, and at the con- 
clusion you thought you were not justified in opening up the case? — A. 
Precisely. 

Q. That it was res adjtidicata and should rest there ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He has been continued in office ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is his character ? — A. He receives the mail and sorts out the 
different letters. He brings in the mail to my room every day. 

Q. Is he regarded as a faithful em ploye ? — A. He is, as far as I know. 

Q. There is nothing (and I put it in a leading form) in the course of 
the investigation which required any action other than that which you 
have taken? — A. No, sir; none whatever. There were all kinds of 



20 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

conflicting statements as to what had been the exact facts of the case. 
From the evidence we can not find out whether there was any danger 
oftheparticnlarexaminationpaper ever being used again. It was just 
about the time the Commission stopped using examination papers twice. 
2!^owada,ys every man who comes in and wants to look into the system 
there can do so. I will take down any old papers and hand them over 
to him. That has been the policy. I think several of you gentlemen 
on this committee have been shown examination papers. Of course 
that was never proper while there was any danger of the papers being 
used a second time. We made up our minds that all those facts must 
have been fresh in Mr. Oberly's mind. That he must have known all 
the facts, and that we could not on secondary evidence overrule a de- 
cision he had made when the thing was fresh in his memory. For that 
reason we took no action in the matter. 

By Mr. Gkeenhalge : 

Q. 1 will ask you whether this promotion came while you were in 
office '? — A. 'So, sir. 

Q. You stated to the committee your chief reason for accepting the 
decision of the former Commission was that it might reflect upon them. 
"Was that your chief reason, or was that one of the reasons"? — A. The 
chief reason was the fear lest we might do injustice in the case. It is a 
pretty serious matter to turn a man out on as grave a charge as that, 
and discredit Mr, Oberly and Mr. Lyman for keeping him in, and I was 
not willing- on the secondary evidence before me to take that ground. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. You did not investigate any further to find out if it was res adju- 
dicataf — A. The exact course followed, as well as I can now recollect, 
was to find out who in the oftice knew anything about the matter. I 
found that Mr. Campbell himself and Mr. Doyle did, and I believe one 
or two other employes had heard rumors of it, but nothing definite. 
All the evidence that amounted to anything was from Campbell, Doyle, 
and Lyman. 

Q. Did you examine the matter to ascertain if it was res adjudicaia, 
or did you simply relj^ upon the fact that Commissioner Oberly had 
decided the matter"? — A. Not entirely on that fact. I decided that, on 
the evidence that we had before us, we did not think it was sufiicient 
to justify reversing his action. 

Q. Did you examine Mr. Campbell ?~A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What statement did he make? I presume he admitted that he 
was guilty of the charge 1? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you consider it a gross offense ; did you attach any import- 
ance to it ? — A. I certainly did. 

Q. Would you characterize it as a breach of discipline or a quasi- 
criminal offense"?— A. I can not answer that question, because I could 
not find out definitely what the offense was. 

Q. The Commission as at present constituted — whom we all admit are 
able and distinguished gentlemen — suppose that one of your employes 
in the bureau abstracts questions, conceding the questions are obsolete, 
how would you characterize that offense, and what terms would you 
apply to it "? — A. Gentlemen of the committee, in answering that ques- 
tion, I am afraid that I may answer — I will state perfectly frankly that 
I should certainly move to dismiss any employ6 of the Commission who 
gave any special advantage to any one. 

Q. Would you follow it with immediate and instantaneous dismis- 
sal "? — A. Yes, sir. I am not saying this with reference tc Mr. Camp- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESliaATION. 21 

bell's offenses because I can not be aware of what Mr. Cami^bell's offense 
was. 

Q. Any employe who would be guilty of such an act as Campbell had 
been guilty of; would you follow it with immediate and instantaneous 
dismissal? — A. I have heard six or eight allegations about it. 

Q. We hud the only allegations that have been made are that he 
abstracted papers from the files and gave them to iudividaals on the 
outside. Suppose you ascertained that an employe in your bureau had 
been guilty of that action ; would you not follow it with instantaneous 
dismissal f — A. It is a hard thing to answer that question. These were 
old papers, and I do not know but circumstances might come out that 
would favorably incline me to forgive the man. 

Q. Then you do not consider it any offense to take papers from the 
files?— A. Yes, I do. 

Q. How do you consider it? — A. I want to answer the question, but 
I would say I want to know all the circumstances of the case. 

Q. Suppose his guilt was proven beyond any sort of question or 
doubt ?— A. Guilty of what ? 

Q. Abstracting these questions from the fites. — A. I would want to 
know all the circumstances of the case before I could pass judgment 
upon it. 

Q. Suppose an employe had given questions out with a view of 
assisting a party, what would you say about it as a Commissioner 1 — 
A. Well, as I say, it would depend upon the circumstances of the case. 
I am inclined to think I should dismiss the offender. I want you to 
understand that it is embarrassing to be asked these questions. I can 
not answer any more definitely than I have done. 

By Mr. Butterworth : 

Q. It was the question of intent ? — A. Yes sir, it was the question of 
intent. For instance, if it was a man who had just come in and was 
ignorant of the rules, I would not have dismissed him immediately. 

Mr. EwART. That case was not given you. I am putting a plain 
simple case where the party had given out papers. 

The Witness. Tou are supposing, I know, how Mr. Campbell acted. 
I do not. 

Mr. LiND. Is not this argument ? 

Mr. Butterworth. I understand him to say this: That when 
these charges were made he looked into the matter to see if there was 
anything that called for further investigation, but he found it res ad- 
judicata. There was nothing which prompted him to make a further 
investigation. 

Mr. EwART. Then I followed that statement with this : Did you stop 
with the investigation when you ascertained it was res adjudicata, and 
he replied, I brought Mr. Doyle and Mr. Campbell before me. 

Mr. Darqan. You do not know whether the act was immoral or not? 

The Witness. I do not. If you ask me whether I consider Mr. 
Campbell's act improper or not, I say I do not know. Mr. Ewart is 
asking hypothetical questions. The thing occurred months ago as well 
as I can recollect, and I am not perfectly certain even now that I am 
getting it straight. I should like to hear what Governor Thompson 
says about it. We examined Mr. Campbell for some time before we 
found that Mr. Oberly had adjudicated the matter. I am inclined to 
think, though I do not recollect, that we had Mr. Campbell in and that 
he said something about Mr. Doyle's knowledge of the case, and that 
from Mr. Doyle we got the idea (I think, though I may be incorrect, 



22 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

but I think it was from Mr. Doyle) that Mr. Obei-ly had adjiKlicated 
the matter. I think we had Campbell in twice and Doyle in once, and 
that we went all through the thing and talked it all over ourselves. 

ByMr. EwABT: 

Q. You got the idea from Doyle that Oberly had adjudicated the 
matter 1 — A. I believe so. I remember we first examined Campbell and 
Doyle in Governor Thompson's room, and saw Mr. Lyman in his own 
room. I think we brought up Mr. Doyle again on the consecutive day, 

Q. How did you become satisfied that the matter had been adjudi- 
cated by Oberly? — A. It was the unanimous statement of Campbell, 
Doyle, and Lyman. 

Q. You became satisfied that the matter was adjudicated"? — A. I be- 
came satisfied from the statements of Doyle and Campbell. 

Q. Campbell had been charged as the guilty party and Lyman was 
charged with, being his brother-in-law ? — A. And the damaging fact had 
been admitted. 

Q. You became satisfied of it from the evidence of Doyle 1 — A. Yes, 
sir ; corroborated by the statement of Lyman. The w^itnesses we exam- 
ined were Campbell, Doyle, and Lyman, and the one whom I spoke of 
in the person of Mrs. Lockhart who was in Mr. Lyman's room early in 
October. There were four witnesses. One was Mr. Lyman, one was 
Mr. Campbell, and two were disinterested outsiders. Their statements 
agreed entirely with what Mr. Oberly had investigated, and he had 
continued Mr. Campbell in office. 

I did not say I only investigated it until I found it was res adjudicata. 
I do not think we definitely decided it until the witnesses had left and 
we had consulted with one another. I think my statement will show 
that, and then as for the evidence on which I was convinced, it was the 
examination of the three people and subsequently the testimony of Mrs. 
Lockhart as to the statements made by two or three people as to what 
they had heard. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Mr. Lyman under oath testified that Mr. Campbell had confessed to 
stealing these questions ; also the questions stolen and furnished Mrs. 
Smith. Did Mr. Lyman make that statement to you? — A. I can not 
now exactly recollect what Mr. Lyman said. I certainly have no recol- 
lection of his making statements of that kind. 

Q. You say that you decided not to look into the offenses committed 
before you came in as a Commissioner? — A, 1 said that we were very re- 
luctant to take that up. Of course if we felt i^arricide had been com- 
mitted, we might have taken it up. 

Q. Have you not as a Commissioner recommended the removal of Dem- 
ocratic office-holders because of offenses committed before you became 
Commissioner? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. This offense has been condoned? — A, ISo, it has not. This offense 
had been investigated by a former Commissioner and a decision reached. 

Q. You have recommended dismissal for offenses committed before 
you became Commissioner? — A. Yes, sir ; but never where the previous 
commission had examined into the alleged offense and acquitted the 
alleged offender. We would not reverse such a decision unless new 
evidence showed beyond all doubt that the original decision was wrong. 
Of course, we would have to look into offenses which had never been 
investigated or where the investigation was still pending. 

By Mr. Stone : 
Q. On political grounds ? — A. For collecting political assessments. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 23 

Q. I understood you to say you recoinmeuded the dismissal of Demo- 
cratic officials'? — A. Both Democratic and Republican officials were 
found guilty of violating the law. We have recommended the prose- 
cution of certain gentlemen in New York. We learned they were mak- 
ing collections to elect Mr. Cleveland. We have also recommended the 
prosecution of Virginians who were making collections to elect Mr. Ma- 
hone in 1889. We have meted out justice on each side. 

Q. What I want to know is whether you based these recommenda- 
tions on the fact whether the incumbent was a Democrat or a Eepub- 
lican ? — A. Of course not. All the recommendations I made were con- 
curred in by Governor Thompson. I presume it is hardly necessary to 
answer a question like that of Mr. Hatton's. 

Mr. BuTTEEWORTH. Tou do not want to punish a man for being a 
Democrat ; his punishment will come hereafter "? 

The Witness. My main object is to keep Democrats in office.' I do 
not punish a man for being a Democrat ; our aim has been to get Dem- 
ocrats to come forward and be examined for civil-service appointments. 

The Chaieman. Your knowledge of this Campbell matter — was it 
derived officially or through the newspapers *? 

The Witness. Merely through the newspapers. 

By Mr. Ewaet : 

Q. What statement did Campbell make to you when you interrogated 
him as to those charges ; can you give his exact statement 1 — A. I 
could not give his exact statement ; I could tell you probably what he 
said. He said that he had been asked by a woman who wanted to take 
a promotion examination, and that he took out his paper and copied 
the questions and answers. We publish the questions at the end of 
the year. Campbell not being a bright man, did not want to work out 
the answers himself, and he took some papers where the answers were 
already worked ; if the papers had been used they would have been of 
no use to this woman. He took a set of questions that had been 
already worked out, and he copied them off. Otherwise he would have 
had to work out the answers. 

Q. Would those questions, from the statement that he made, have 
assisted an applicant in an examination"? — A. From the statement that 
he made I should have thought not, for one of the things that struck 
me was the aimlessness of the act; I could not see where the great 
advantage to the woman came in. 

Mr. Andrew. Could not the woman get an idea of the scope of the 
questions'? — A. She could examine the printed lists precisely similar 
to these questions. 

Mr. Darg-an. The printed lists were not given out ? 

The Witness. Samples of the questions are from time to time printed 
in the paper. I do not believe that they had been printed at the end 
of the report, but they certainly had been in the papers, all kinds of 
printed sample papers. 

Mr. EwART. Did it occur to you to ask Mr. Campbell what purpose 
he had in taking the questions out of the office "? 

The Witness. Yes, sir; his reply was she wanted them and he gave 
them to her. I believe he said she bothered him until he gave them to 
her. 

The Chairman. How are appointments made in your office, by pro- 
motion or otherwise ? 

The Witness. I can only speak of the time the governor and I have 
been in. The settled policy is to commence at the lowest grade and pro- 
mote them steadily up to the highest. There are seven grades. Three 



24 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

of those grades have but one man in them and four have two each. We 
can not hold competitive examinations where there is only one. Even 
where there are two in a grade they are usually engaged in such dif- 
ferent occuxjations that no common test could be ax)plied to them ; for 
instance, one may be a stenographer or copyist and tne other a man 
skilled in docketing the different letters or answering applications. 
Whenever capacity warrants we promote in the order of seniority. We 
take them in the order of their certification. For instance, we wanted 
a messenger and we found there was a vacancy in the ISI'orth Carolina 
list and we wrote to one man from Korth Carolina named Bunn to take 
the position. We had originally signified that we would give him the ap- 
pointment. He is now serving as our messenger. He can not be pro- 
moted for a year under the rules because he must serve in the $900 
place for a year. 

Mr. EwAET. The next charge is, appointments are said to have been 
made in utter disregard of the law. 

The Witness. That is absolutely false. I am going to ask the com- 
mittee what the charges are against us. 

Mr. Hatton. I charge this, and if I can get a chance I can prove it, 
that the present Commission have manipulated the rules. It charges 
the present Commission, and I charge it here and now, and am perfectly 
willing to formulate those charges. I did not formulate the charges 
here. I say, and I will j^rove it, that there is a clerk in the city post- 
office who was personated by another clerk. We will prove that the 
present president of the Commission was notified of that fact. 

TESTIMONY OF HUGH S. THOMPSON. 
Hugh S. Thompson, sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Butteeworth : 

Q. You are one of the Civil Service Commissioners ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When were you appointed ? — A. I was appointed on the 7th of 
May and took the oath on the 9th of May. 

Q. Will you state, if you please, what you know and what connec- 
tion you have had with this Campbell matter? — A. I read an editorial 
in the Washington Post which charged Campbell with stealing ques- 
tions and selling them. I did not believe it, and 1 thought if there 
was any foundation for it it was a gross exaggeration. We decided to 
look into the matter. We examined Doyle and Campbell, and as soon 
as Mr. Lyman returned to the city we had a conversation with him, 
and asked him to make a full statement about it. We asked him to 
submit a statement in writing. The testimony of Lyman and Camp- 
bell, whom we examined separately, agreed completely, and they con- 
firmed each other. Mr. Doyle was totally disinterested. We found 
that the matter had been settled after Mr. Oberly had investigated it, 
though there wa« no record of any action having been taken. Camp- 
bell had been retained in the service, and it seemed clear that Mr. 
Oberly had decided that the offense did not deserve dismissal, but only 
called for a reprimand. Mr. E-oosevelt agreed with me that, while it 
was painful to him to find that such a charge was made and to have a 
man of that sort in the office, he thought we could not under the cir- 
cumstances re-open the question, since Mr. Oberly had practically de- 
cided the man was not to be dismissed. 

Q. In your best judgment the public service did not require any other 
actf — A. Precisely 5 I thought it would be going too far to re-open the 
case. Mr. Campbell I found to be diligent and faithful. I only re- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 25 

ji^retted that such charges could be made against an employe of the 
Commission. 

Q. At the time you began this examination, you did not know the 
subject had been investigated f — A. Ko, sir. 

Q. You had examined carefully these four witnesses ? — A. We had 
examined three witnesses. 

Q. And you found the matter had been given such an investigation 
as you would give to it if you had been in Mr. Oberly's place? — A. 
There was the testimony of Doyle that Oberly had investigated it. 
What conclusion Oberly had come to Doyle could not tell us. The 
fact remained that Campbell was still on the force and there was no 
record that Oberly desired his dismissal. 

Q. Were any formal charges preferred ? — A. Never, except this edi- 
torial in the Post. I should say that this man Flynn, whom I have 
never seen, in an interview, as 1 recollect, and in a letter purporting to 
be signed by him, stated distinctly that he had never paid anything for 
the papers. 

Mr. Stone. Does Mr. Oberly live here! 

The Witness. I do not know whether he does or not. I saw him on 
the street so»me little distance away. I do not think I have seen him 
twice in a year. 

Mr. BuTTBRWOETH. Have you seen Mr. Edgerton ? 

The Witness. Mr. Edgerton did not confer with me a great deal. I 
did not know Mr. Oberly was here. However, the non-action of the 
Commission indicated that we thought it had been settled to suit them 
in some way. 

Mr. EooSEVELT. Mr. Oberly was one of the people charged. Charges 
were made with great looseness. 

The Witness. We made a full inquiry and examined Doyle and 
Campbell and had several conferences and came to the conclusion that 
the matter was not one we could properly reopen. We took this 
ground, that if Campbell was morally entitled to remain, he was mor- 
ally entitled to j)romotion, and if that was the case, he was morally fit 
for an $1,800 clerkship. 

By Mr. Ewaet: 

Q. Under the rules would Campbell have been promoted? — A. It is 
a question of efficiency. 1 do not know; it would depend on who was 
in competition with him. 

Q. Suppose he had abstracted papers from the files ? — A. If morally 
fit to stay, he was morally fit for promotion. It is simply a question of 
efficiency. 

Q. Would you deem it an offense to abstract papers ? — A. I would 
regard it as a breach of discipline. 

Q. You would not have promoted a man guilty of that? — A. I see 
the President only this morning disapproved the finding of a court- 
martial in the case of a man guilty of a grave breach of discipline. He 
is going to allow the man to be promoted in the Army. Under the cir- 
cumstances I think it is right. 

Q. That is not a breach of discipline such as Campbell was guilty 
of? — A. It depends on what Campbell did. If he took an old set of 
papers I would not think it a serious breach of discipline; otherwise I 
would. Something was said here just now in regard to an investiga- 
tion and Democratic dismissals at Milwaukee. In regard to that mat- 
ter, as a Democrat I would hang my head, but as a Civil Service Com- 
missioner I would invite an investigation. 

Adjourned. 



26 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



Wednesday, February 26, 1890. 

The Chairman. Before calling any witness, Mr. Lyman wishes to 
make some corrections or explanation as to liis former evidence. 

Mr. Lyman. In the testimony which I gave at the last sitting of the 
committee, I stated, as I remember, that these questions were brought 
to my attention on the afternoon of one day, and that the handwriting- 
was not discovered until the following day. Circumstances have been 
brought to my attention since, that indicate that a longer interval may 
have elaiised between the time the questions were first brought to my 
attention and the time of the discovery as to whose handwriting they 
were in. I know I have now reason to believe that several days, possi- 
bly three or four days, may have elapsed. I am not certain as to the 
number of days. The facts that impressed this on my mind, and which 
have become fixed there, are that apparently questions of the Commis- 
sion had been copied and that they were in the handwriting of a relative 
of mine, and that an investigation was needed and should be had. I 
wish to state further, as I recollect the testimony, that I used this ex- 
pression : '' Commissioner Edgerton being absent.^' There are some 
circumstances which lead me to believe that several days may have 
elapsed between the time the questions were first brought to my atten- 
tion and the time when they were discovered in the handwriting of 
my relative, and that Mr. Edgerton may have been present at the office 
of the Commission during this time. I am not prepared to state posi- 
tively that he was or was not, but I correct that expression " being 
absent," because I am not prepared to say whether he was absent or 
present. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. OBERLY. 

Mr. John H. Oberly sworn and examined. 
By the CHAIRMAN : 

Q. You were formerly one of the Civil Service Commissioners. Will 
you please state how long ? — A. From April, 1886, until October, 1888. 

Q. Do you know a man named Campbell, a brother-in-law of Mr. 
Lyman ?— A. I do. 

Q. Do youremember thatcharges were miide against Mr. Campbellfor 
having abstracted examination papers from the Bureau at one time? — 
A. No charges were ever made to me against Mr. Campbell of ab- 
stracting questions from the Civil Service Commission files at any time. 

Q. It has been stated here before this committee that Mr. Campbell 
had abstracted papers or copies of papers from the files and furnished 
them to an outside party. That offense was examined into by yourself 
and the conclusion was reached by you that Mr. Campbell should be re- 
tained in office. Will you state as briefly as you can your connection 
with the matter ? — A. In the first part of 1888, I think it was, informa- 
tion reached me that examination questions of the Civil Service Com- 
mission were being copied by some person connected with the Commis- 
sion and were being sold to a civil service coacher of this city. Believ- 
ing that if that statement were true the i^arty guilty of the offense of 
copying and selling such questions should be known to the Commission 
and dismissed from the service, I concluded that it was my duty to as- 
certain as much concerning the matter as possible. I thereupon asked 
the jierson who brought that information to me to procure for me the 
copies of the questions wliich it was said had been called to the atten- 
tion of this person by Mr. Flynn, of the Ivy Institute. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 27 

The person who gave me the iuformation stated, as I remember, that 
Mr. Flynn proposed to guaranty her passage of the clerk's examina- 
tion upon the payment of $15 for the entire examination, or $10 for 
the arithmetical examination. Understanding by that statement that 
he desired $15 for the questions, I told the lady that if she would get 
the questions and had to pay $15, I would re-imburse her out of my 
own pocket. At that time I had an impression that possibly Mr Flynn 
had procured the questions of some examination and had them copied 
or printed and was selling copies of them. In the course of a week or 
so probably the lady (who is present here) came to me with a roll of 
manuscript saying that this roll of manuscript was a copy of certain 
questions of the Civil Service Commission, and that she had been in- 
formed that some person connected with the Commission had furnished 
that copy to Mr. Flynn. She stated to me that I might have the ques- 
tions to examine upon condition that they should be returned to her 
within a certain specified time — I have forgotten the time fixed, but it 
was a week or so, that they might be returned to Flynn — and that I 
should not in my investigation do anything that would give Mr. Flynn 
information concerning the fact of the transmission of the questions to 
me at that time. I think she stated the questions had been furnished 
without any condition on his part. I agreed to these conditions, and 
immediately after her departure from my room I went into the room 
of the president of the Commission, Mr. Edgerton, and the Com- 
mission being in session, I laid the manuscript upon the desk and 
stated the charges that had been made and said : " I believe we should 
miake an investigation to ascertain whether what has been said con- 
cerning the manuscript is true, so that we may see if any person is 
copying or selling questions and making a traffic of that kind." Mr. 
Eclgerton immediately said that he would have nothing to do with any 
such investigation as that ; that it would amount to nothing, that there- 
was nothing in it, and pushed the manuscript aside with his hand in a 
very determined manner. 

When I put this roil of manuscript on the desk and stated the condi- 
tions on which I had received it, I said if the Commission would ac- 
cept this copy upon the terms on which I had received it, that they could 
have it. Commissioner Lyman, after Mr. Edgerton refused to have 
anything to do with it, said he thought an investigation should take 
place; that we should accept the questions, and proceed to an investi- 
gation to ascertain if any person had made copies of questions and had 
sold them; stating that any person who would do so oughtto be punished, 
and he would be in favor of the punishment of such a person whoever 
he might be. Thereupon he examined the questions. He took up the 
manuscript and examined it. After he had completed his examination, 
I said : "Gentlemen, what do you want to do with this matter? Shall 
we go on with the investigation and accept this manuscript on the terms 
proposed by me?" Mr. Edgerton again said he would not do so. He 
said he would not enter into it. Mr. Lyman said it was a serious matter 
and required consideration. Then I pressed for an explicit answer to my 
inquiry, whether the manuscript should be accepted upon the conditions 
I had stated. Some conversation took place between the Commissioners, 
Mr. Edgerton continuing to deprecate the proposed investigation. The 
Commissioners talked together. The secretary of the Commission, Mr. 
Doyle, being present and also saying something in reference to the 
matter, as I remember. Finally, I said, " Well, the Commission does 
not appear to be ready to settle this question to-night;" and turning 
to Mr. Doyle, I continued: "Mr. Secretary, you take this manuscript 



28 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

and lock it in tbe safe and allow it to remain there until the Commis- 
sion determines whether it desires to go into an investigation." There- 
upon Mr. Doyle took the manuscript from me and went into the certifi- 
cation room wliere the safe was and put the manuscript in the safe and 
locked it, he having the combination. I accompanied him and noticed 
him do this. Then the question was dismissed from the consideration 
of the Commission. 

After a number of days, I have forgotten how many, I sent for the 
secretary and stated to him that it did not seem that the other Com- 
missioners were ready to go on with the investigation, and I said : " I 
think I will make an investigation of my own for the purpose of satis- 
fying myself, and I would like you to aid me in it." It may be in the 
meantime Mr. Edgerton had gone away. Mr. Edgerton may have left 
the city after the meeting to which I refer. Mr. Doyle told me he would 
be very willing to aid me in any way. I said to him, "You get speci- 
mens of the handwriting of every person employed in the Commission, 
and let nobody know what you are doing it for. Get them without cre- 
ating suspicion on the part of anybody." I wanted them for the pur- 
poses of the investigation. Mr. Doyle said he would do so, and proceeded 
to obtain specimens of the handwriting of every person connected with 
the Commission. Having done this he compared the handwriting with 
the manuscript that he had taken from the safe, and havibg completed 
his investigation he brought to me the manuscript with the copy of a 
letter that had been copied by Mr. Campbell a couple of years before, 
and a book in which the letters received were registered, which book was 
kept by Mr. Campbell at that time. Mr. Doyle laid this copy of this let- 
ter and manuscript before me and said, " I think I know the person 
who made the copy." Then I looked at the three writings and said, "The 
person who wrote any one of these wrote the other two, and I see from 
the book, letter, and manuscript that the writing is Mr. Campbell's, 
Doyle, he having stated that the copy of the letter was in the hand- 
writing of Mr. Campbell." 

I then said to the secretary, Mr. Doyle, " Take this manuscript and 
copy of the letter to Mr. Lyman, and say, as coming from me, that I 
have investigated this matter, and that I am convinced that Mr. Camp- 
bell copied the questions." Mr. Doyle went into Mr. Lyman's room, at 
least he left my room with the book, letter, and manuscript, and in a 
short while afterwards, half an hour or so, 1 went into the room of Mr. 
Lyman, having ascertained that Campbell had been in, there with Mr. 
Lyman. I said to Mr. Lyman, " Well, Mr. Lyman, what of this "? " He 
replied, " I have compared the writings, and have had Mr. Campbell 
with me and have gone over the matter, and there is no doubt that the 
copy was made by Mr. Campbell. He has confessed all about it and told 
me all about it." I asked Mr. Lyman to make a statement to me of what 
Mr. Campbell had said about it, and Mr. Lyman stated to me that Mr. 
Campbell had told him that he made the copy of those questions for a 
lady acquaintance of his who was then in the Pension Office, holding 
a copyist's place at $900 a year, and who desired to have a promotion 
as soon as she could have one under the rules ; that after having been 
appointed from the copyist's register she would have to remain in that 
position for a year before she could be promoted, and even then could 
not be promoted after the expiration of a year unless she passed the gen- 
eral examination now called the clerk examination ; that being very 
anxious that she should pass the examination, and it being evident that 
she could get a recommendation for promotion, she desired to know 
what kind of an examination she would have to pass. She said she 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 29 

would coach herself, or be coached, or study the different subjects in 
order to pass the examination ; that she was rusty, particularly in arith- 
metic, and desired to know what the arithmetical questions would be. 
He stated that he had no printed questions to give her, but finally was 
persuaded, and did copy the questions outside of office hours, and gave 
them to her with the understanding that she should use them for her 
purpose she had intended and then destroy them, and some other details 
concerning the matter of this kind. 

Then Mr. Lyman said to me, " Now, Mr. Oberly, this is rather a deli- 
cate position that I am placed in. I do not wish to do Campbell an 
injustice, but I am of the impression that he has done a serious wrong. 
1 wish that you would take this matter into your hands and make an 
examination and investigation, and ascertain whether he is culpable 
and what should be done. I will be satisfied with whatever report you 
make." 

Thereupon I called Mr. Campbell into my room and asked him to 
make a statement of the circumstances under which he had copied these 
questions. He did so, stating to me almost exactly what Commissioner 
Lyman had informed me was the statement of Mr. Campbell to him. 
Then it occurred to me that I ought to see the lady in question before Mr. 
Campbell should see her, so that I might ascertain whether she, with- 
out collusion with Campbell and without having an opportunity to dis- 
cuss the question with him, would tell the same story that Campbell 
had told, and immediately 1 went to the Pension Office and requested 
the Commissioner of Pensions to have this lady called into his room. 
She came in response to that call, and I then stated to her in sim- 
ulated anger that she had been procuring questions from the Civil 
Service Commission. I looked at her very severely. I told her that, 
in an improper manner, she had lately obtained from Mr. Campbell a 
copy of examination papers and that she had taken them to a Mr. 
Flynn and had sold them to him, and that I understood she was making 
a traffic in such things, and that having discovered her in the matter 
and also Mr. Campbell, that both of them were to be discharged from 
the service immediately. I pretended that I knew a great deal more 
than I did for the i)urpose of frightening her into a confession. 

The lady had seemed much pleased to see me at first, but when the 
conversation occurred she was changed in her demeanor. I saw at 
once after I had spoken that she was sorry I had come, and was rather 
anxious I should go away, but she became indignant and declared I 
was making charges I had no right to make. 1 had something of a 
wrangle with her at that time. Then I said, "IsTow, Mrs. Blank, tell me 
exactly how this matter happened, and if my impression is not correct 
tell me what is the truth." Thereupon she made a statement to me 
almost identical with the statement Campbell had made to me so far as 
her intended examination for promotion, and the taking of the questions 
was concerned, how it had come about, and how the questions were 
found in the hands of the coacher. She said, " I had a good education 
in my youth, but I have forgotten a great deal of what 1 knew, and if 
I am dull in anything it is arithmetic;" and she said, '' when I looked 
over these questions I was satisfied I could not pass the examination 
until I had freshened up on this subject." She said, " When I took these 
questions to Mr. Flynn, they were simply copies of questions which had 
been used." She said to him that she would have to pass an examina- 
tion if she got a i)romotion, and she wanted him to instruct her in the 
arithmetical part of the questions, and wanted to go over that branch 
of the examination. 



30 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

I said, " Did lie j)ny you. anything for these questions when he received 
them from you?" She said no, but oa the contrary, she paid him for 
the lessons. I said, " How many lessons?" I think she said three. I 
said I thought she ought to quit it. After some other conversation, in 
which she desired me to undertand that she and not Mr. Campbell was 
to blame, for she had persuaded him, etc., I left. 

I then investigated the matter of the questions. I sought to ascertain 
and did ascertain whether the questions had been used after that time. 
The investigation that I made led me to believe that at the time the 
questions had been furnished they had never been used in any exam- 
ination except the one. Then I ascertained that no person who was 
an applicant for a civil service examination for admission to the 
service had been injured by this act of Campbell. I satisfied my- 
self that the public service had been in no manner injured by this 
act; that no wrong had been done to any individual or any public 
officer in the public service, and I concluded, after taking into consid- 
eration all the facts, it would be too severe a punishment to dismiss Mr. 
Campbell from the service. I was led to that conclusion by other con- 
siderations which- I wished to mention to you gentlemen, so that you 
may know why this lady applied to Mr. Campbell and not to other per- 
sons for copies of questions. Mr. Campbell was a clerk in the office 
when I became commissioner. He was then, I presume, performing 
the same duties he is now. It was his duty as a clerk, a duty had 
been imposed upon him by the Commission to take all letters contain- 
ing requests for blank applications for examinations and reply to them 
by sending to each applicant for examination a blank form and accom- 
panying the blank form with a pamphlet which contained specimen 
copies of examination papers of the Commission, marking the particu- 
lar examination that the person desired to take, as, for instance, if a 
request was for blank applications for copyist examination, he would 
mark what we then called the limited examination and turn down the 
leaf there, and in other ways call attention to that particular exami- 
nation,' so the party might be informed as fully as possible the charac- 
ter of the examination he would have to take when he came before the 
board of examiners. It was also the custom almost every day for i^er- 
sons in the city who desired examination blanks to come into the office 
and get blank applications and information concerning the examination 
which they proposed to take, and they were always referred to Mr. 
Campbell. 

Mr. GEEENHALaE (in the chair). In whose charge were these par- 
ticular questions which Mr. Campbell copied ? 

The Witness, They were in charge of the secretary, and Mr. Camp- 
bell was under him. The secretary had charge of Campbell's books 
and all examination papers of persons who had become eligible by 
reason of having passed examinations. Persons who came into the 
office would be referred to Mr. Campbell. The secretary and the 
Commissioners would refer them to Mr. Campbell. We would say, "If 
you want specimen questions go to Mr. Campbell and he will give them 
to you." It was Campbell's duty to speak to the applicant and call 
the person's particular attention to the specimen questions printed in 
the book, and answer all questions which he could, and they gener- 
ally asked as many as they could. As far as the Commissioners had 
printed five editions of one of the reports for the simple purpose of sup- 
plying the demand for sample questions. We meant to print another 
edition, but the Commission had run out of money and it had gotten 
into some controversy, I think, with the Secretary of the Interior, or a 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 31 

clerk of tlie Interior Department who had some peculiar ideas about 
printing, and we could not print any more; so that persons who made 
personal application to the Commission were met with the reply that 
copies of the book containing specimen questions had been exhausted, 
and we had no money to print more and could not furnish them. Some 
of them thought it was a hardship) that they had to be ignorant of the 
scope of the examinations, and it was suggested to the applicants some- 
times when they came in and they were told that they could sit in the 
room and read, and if they wished to even copy, the papers of the last 
examination made by the person who had passed the highest and given 
the most satisfactory answers to the questions; that in this way they 
could see exactly what kind of questions were being asked, and what 
was necessary in order to pass an examination. We would tell them, 
"Tou can sit here and read and even copy these papers." 

Mr. Hopkins. To what point is the witness directing his testimony? 

The Witness. I was asked when this matter was investigated, 
whether I investigated it, and whether I arrived at certain conclusions, 
and if I did, why and how, and I am stating it. I consider this charge 
made as much against me as against anybody, because I had charge 
of the whole matter and took the whole responsibility. 

By Mr. BoATNEE, : 

Q. I understand you to say that according to the best of your judg- 
ment you did investigate and pass upon this matter on your respon- 
sibility and upon your best judgment upon it as an officer? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What punishment, if any, was inflicted upon Mr. Campbell for 
this breach of discipline? — A. I do not agree with Mr. Lyman that he 
was guilty of a gross breach of discipline. 

Mr. Hopkins. The point I was making was that he was dwelling on 
Some matters which might be very interesting as a matter of reminis- 
cence, but I did not see the revelancy of it. 

Mr. Gkeenhalge. State the material facts. 

The Witness. I am endeavoring to do that. It was Mr. Campbell's 
duty to give out specimen questions. Questions were taken from the 
files of the office by Mr. Doyle, Mr. Campbell, and myself, People were 
sometimes told that they might,if they wished, copy them and carry them 
away. Because Campbell was in that position it led the lady to make 
application to him, I presume. Anyhow, he was in that position and 
it was his duty to furnish specimen questions. I thought he had no 
right to copy those questions. The fact that they had gotten into the 
possession of a person who was using them in his business showed that 
it was an improper thing for him to do. I made this report. I did not 
think that Campbell as a clerk ought to be dismissed. I think proba- 
bly I said, "I will see him and talk with him and tell him what I think 
about this thing." I did not after this insist on the Commission mak- 
ing any investigation. 

Mr. Hopkins. Was it anything that in your judgment required dis- 
ciplining or speaking to on the subject? 

The Witness. Yes, sir; it was, under the circumstances. If I had 
found these questions in Campbell's hands, I never would have thought 
anything of it. I would have thought Mr. Campbell was doing a good 
deal of gratuitous work, but I would not have thought there was any- 
thing wrong in the mere fact that he had copied the questions. 

Mr. Geeenhalge. You did not know of any like practice of an em- 
ploy6 of the Commission furnishing copies of examination papers? 

The Witness. N'o, sir ; I never did. I would frequently hear that per- 
sons had questions of the Civil Service Commission, and had boasted of it. 



32 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By Mr. Hopkins : 

Q. How did you hear that they had boasted that they had questions 
of the Commission? — A. There was a case in the post-office. 

Q. Who was the person ? — A. I can not tell the names. 

Q. From whom did you learn it ? — A. I learned it by an anonymous 
letter. 

Q. Was that all your information "? — A. That was all. 

Q. Did the writer of the anonymous letter make such boasts ? — A. 
He did. 

Q. Do you remember what the boast was ? — A. I do not. 

Q. Where is that anonymous letter ? — A. I do not know. 

Q. What did you do with it ?— A. I destroyed it. 

Q. You made a statement about certain persons making these 
boasts. — A. I would frequently hear such rumors. 

Q. Can you give the name of any person ? — A. They never made any 
such boast to me. 

Q. Can you name any person that did f — A. I can not. I have seen 
it published in the newspapers, but I can not tell you now what papers. 

The Chairman. Was anything said to you by your colleague, Mr. 
Edgerton, as to the examination that you were conducting? 

The Witness. 'No, sir ; because the examination that I was conduct- 
ing did not last long, and my impression is that at the time Mr. Edger- 
ton was out of the city, but I do not know that that is a fact. 

Mr. EWART. Mr. Chairman, before I enter upon the cross-examina- 
tion I desire to make a brief statement. 

There have been intimations made by members of the committee that 
at the last session of the committee a great many unnecessary and use- 
less questions were asked. I have no desire whatever to detain this 
committee unnecessarily. I am perfectly aware of the fact that we can 
not be bound by the hide-bound rules of evidence. As an instance, I 
may state that legally we are not allowed to contradict our own witness, 
but in this investigation we will be compelled to do that. I should be 
glad t6 see the Commissioners vindicated, and I say frankly that when 
this evidence is all in, and a perfect case has not been made out by our 
side, I shall frankly state that, not only to this committee, but on the 
floor of the House when the report is brought before the House. 

By Mr. EwAKT: 

Q, You say that no charges were ever made against Mr. Campbell to 
you ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. When you first heard it, you did not call the attention of Mr. 
Lyman or Mr. Edgerton to the matter ? — A. On the same evening I 
called the attention of the Commissioners to the matter while they were 
in session. 

Q. You say that Mr. Edgerton ridiculed the idea of having anything 
to do with it! — A. I do not know that he said that. He said he would 
have nothing to do with the proposed investigation. 

Q. Did he assign a reason to you why he considered there was noth- 
ing in it ? 

Mr. Greenhalge. The witness represented him as saying that an in- 
vestigation would not amount to anything. 

By Mr. Ewart. 

Q. Did he assign a reason at that time why he was unwilling to go 
into an investigation ?-^A. No, except that he would not have any- 
thing to do with it; that he did not believe it amounted to anything. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 33 

Q. Did he assign any reason whatever? — A. He said he would have 
nothing to do with it. 

Q. At that time you regarded it as a serious matter I — A. I did, and 
so stated to the Commission. 

Q. You have read Mr. Edgerton's letter, have you nof? — A. I have. 

Q. You are aware of tlie substance of that letter "? — A. I am. 

Q. You recollect, do you not, that Mr. Edgerton's charges are that the 
questions were taken out by Campbell ? — A. 1 do. 

Q. And that he was re-instated by you Avitliout any investigation 
either by yourself or Mr. Lyman? — A. He said Campbell was retained 
in the service. Nothing was said about re-instatement because he was 
never dismissed. 

Q. I understood you to say that you submitted a copy of a manuscript, 
or whatever it was, to Mr. Lyman 1 — A. It was a roll of manuscript. 

Q. Did Mr. Lyman examine that closely ? — A. He took the manu- 
script up and turned the sheets over and examined it to ascertain what 
it was. 

Q. Did he examine it a sufficient length of time, in your judgment, 
to enable him to tell the handwriting of the party? — A. I should think 
he did. 

Q. Did he tell you at that time that he had any suspicion as to who 
wrote it? — A. After that he did. 

Q. How long after that? — A. It was after the matter had been taken 
to his room bj^ Mr. Dojde a week or so, I can not remember how long. 
He told me, and I think he told the same to Mr. Doyle, that at first he 
thought the handwriting resembled that of a member of the board of 
examiners. After looking into it further he ascertained it was not. I 
think ho said he had an impression that it was Campbell's writing. 

Q. How long after this conversation were you apprised of the fact 
that it was Campbell's handwriting? — A. Not until I was informed by 
comparison that it was Campbell's handwriting. 

Q. The comparison made by Mr. Doyle? — A. Yes, sir. I bad no idea 
it was Campbell's handwriting until then. In my recollection it was a 
week or ten days, though I may be mistaken. It was several days after 
I laid the questions before the Commission. 

Q. Did you know at that time that these questions were obsolete ? — 
A. "Obsolete questions" is a term that I do not exactly understand. 
It is generally used, but it does not mean much. No questions are 
obsolete entirely, because the Commission can take them and use them 
at any time it wishes. 

Q. Had this particular set been what is called obsolete? — A. Not 
entirely. They were obsolete in the sense that they were never used 
again. They would not have been used again. 

Q. Were they used at any other time? — A. Not within my knowledge. 

Q. They had been used in Washington ? — A. They had been used in 
W^ashington, 

Mr. Hopkins. Mr. E wart's point is as to whether they were used in 
any other part of the country. They were used in Washington. Were 
they used in Baltimore, Buffalo, New York, Chicago, or in any other 
place ? — A. Not within my knowledge. I will state what was the cus- 
tom of the Commission. Formerly we used to have examinations fre- 
quently and we had no one in the Commission who had time to prepare 
questions for each examination, and therefore we would have to use the 
same questions more than once. Then we postponed examinations to 
once a week, and then to once a month, and finally we got so that we 
would have them only once every three months. Then we adopted the 
rule that we would never use the same questions twice at the same 
3117 3 



34 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

place, but questions used, for instance, in Washington might be used 
again in different parts of the country. It was not presumed that 
anybody could know where the questions would go. 

Q. Are you perfectly familiar with the questions that were pro- 
pounded to applicants? — A. I can not say that I was perfectly familiar 
with them. 

Q. The question is whether or not you were familiar with the char- 
acter of the questions'? — A. All questions prepared by the chief exam- 
iners were submitted to the Commission and the commissioners read, 
criticised, and changed. 

Q. When your attention was first called to this list of questions, I 
asked you if you did not recognize that they were the list of questions 
that had been used by the Commission. — A. I think I recognized them 
as new questions, as questions that had been used by the Commission 
lately. 

Q. Why did you attach importance to an investigation "' — A. I wanted 
to see if any person in the Commission was making copies of questions 
and selling them. 

Mr. GREENHALaE. We do not care particularly to know the frame 
of mind of these Commissioners. We want to get at the facts. 

Mr. EwART. I sincerely hope that it is not the opinion of gentlemen 
of the committee that we desire only to make an attack upon Mr. 
Thompson or Mr. Roosevelt. We want to state frankly at this stage 
that we desire to get at the whole facts in this matter, no matter whom 
it hurts. Here is a witness, Mr. Oberly, who says Mr. Edgerton, when 
this matter was called to his attention, distinctly stated that there was 
nothing in it. Here is a letter of that Commissioner in which he dis- 
tinctly says that those questions were stolen, and that this man Camp- 
bell was re-instated to his position or appointed to an important place 
in the Commission without any examination. 

Mr. Greenhalge. If you desire to contradict this witness by some 
other witness, would not it be well to wait until you produce the other 
witness ? 

Mr. Hopkins. That is not the point. It is an old saying that a wit- 
ness takes his character in his hand when he goes upon the stand. Mr. 
Oberly has made certain general statements, but the good faith of his 
testimony is one of the elements in this case. I have faith in Illinois 
men, for they are all good men. If Mr. Ewart desires to examine him 
on that point, I think he ought to have the right do so. 

The Witness. If Mr. Ewart understood me to say that I called the 
attention of Mr. Edgerton to the fact tbat Mr. Campbell had done this, 
he is wrong. I never did. I did not know then who it was that gave 
out the papers. 

By Mr. Ewart: 

Q. You regarded it as of suflBcient importance to investigate it at 
that time, and I want to know whether you ascertained that the ques- 
tions were a list of questions that had been used in an examination ? — 
A. I would have considered it just as important if it had been questions 
a year old. 

Q. Why so ? — A. Because, as I said before, the charge was not par- 
ticularly that he had copied specimen questions and given them to any 
person, but that he had sold them. 

Q, Suppose he had given them away ? — A. He had a right to give 
them away under certain conditions. 

Q. Under what conditions? — A. If a person had gone in and asked 
for them, he would have had a right to give them out. 



CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 35 

Q. Then the investigation was directed to whether or not he had sold 
the questions ? — A. Yes, sir. I wanted to know whether he was selling 
them. 

Q. You did not consider it an ofiense to give them away ? — A. I con- 
sidered it an indiscretion. 

Q. An indiscretion merely ? — A. In one sense — if it was done with- 
out informing the Commission. 

Q. Did you hear that Mr. Lyman characterized this as a serious 
breach of discipline ? — A. It was a breach of discii^line in a person to 
copy something out of office hours ^Yithout the knowledge of the Com- 
mission, which he [CampbellJ had no authority to do at tbat time. 

Q. Did Campbell iu his conversation tell you why he had instructed 
or requested this lady to destroy the questions? — A. No, except that 
they would be of no further use. He told her either to destroy them 
or return them to him. The manuscript was in an undisguised hand- 
writing. 

Q. Did you ever at any time administer a reprimand to him*? — A. 
I talked to him. 

Q. The evidence was that you administered a reprimand. — A. It 
was called a reprimand. 

Q. What was the character of that reprimand "? 

The Chairman. Was it as severe as the one you gave the lady in the 
Pension Office? 

The Witness. I was more serious with Campbell than with the wo- 
man because I was sorry he had got into the trouble. I called his at- 
tention to the fact that such actions might lead him into something 
that would be worse than that. I scolded him some. 

Q. When you administered that reprimand you seemed to have re- 
garded it a little more than an indiscretion. — A. It was an indiscre- 
tion that amounted to a breach of discipline, of course, but that it was 
so serious as to demand his expulsion and dismissal from the Commis- 
sion, I did not believe. 

Q. It has been charged by a journal having special facilities for ob- 
taining news from the Cnramissiou that you furnished the information 
upon which these charges are based. — A. I understand that charge 
has been made by the Evening Post of New York, that I was the per- 
son who had been furnishing Mr. Hatton the information on which 
these charges are based. I wish to say I never furnished Mr. Hatton 
any information on which he based his broadsides or any of the edito- 
rials in his paper or otherwise, and I consider this as a matter against 
myself because I had the Campbell matter in my hands and acquitted 
Campbell. I did think then I was right and I now think I was right. 
I never furnished any information. 

Q. Did you ever recommend the promotion at any time of Mr. 
Campbell after this investigation? — A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. As to the act of Mr. Lyman in appointing Mr. Campbell when he 
was the sole Commissioner, will you give us your views upon that 
matter? — A. As to the propriety of it or the legality of the act? 

Mr. EwART. This is a matter of strictly legal construction. We de- 
sire to invite the attention of the Commission and of the committee to 
section 1 of the act which distinctly provides that the Commission 
shall be composed of three members. . We take the position that Mr. 
Lyman's act was illegal because there was only one Commissioner. 



36 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 



TESTIMOHY OF WILLIAM J. VICKEKY. 

William J. Vickee y, sworn and examined. 
By the Chairman : 

Q. Please state your name. — A. My name is William J. Vickery ; I 
reside in Evansville, Ind. 

Q. State as briefly as you can any personal knowledge you may have 
in the matter of this copying of papers in the Civil Service Commission 
by Mr. Campbell. — A. I have no personal knowledge of the matter at 
all. The only knowledge I have is hearsay of the case obtained from 
one or two persons, which was a garbled account of the statement Mr. 
Oberly has just made. 

Q. Was any statement made by Mr. Lyman or by either of the Com- 
missioners to you "l — A. To me there never has been such statement or 
admission made. I never conversed with either of the Commissioners 
or the ex- Commissioners about it. It came to me in a shape in which I 
was asked not to mention anything about it. It came to me in a way 
that was misleading in two or three particulars. 

Q. Were you employed by the Civil Service Commission"? — A. I was 
with them from July 25, 1885, until July 1, 1889. 

Q. You say you have no personal knowledge of this transaction ? — 
A. It would be hearsay all the way through. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Please state exactly what you heard about this matter. You were 
in the office of the Commissioners as an employe. State whether or not 
this report of Campbell's taking these questions created any excite- 
ment, and if so, what it was. — A. I was told in a conversation some 
time early this year, perhaps the chief examiner gave the information 
to me, that it had been charged that questious of the Commission were 
leaking out and had been furnished to Mr. Flynn. It led to the idea 
that some of the members of the board of examiners were under sus- 
picion. As 1 had read the proof sometimes of the questions, I naturally 
supposed that I was under suspicion. This was early in the year. 
Early in March I left Washington on a tour of examination and 1 did 
not get back until the 9th or lOth of June, Soon after getting back I 
asked some one, perhaps the chief examiner, whether they had found 
out who had given out the questious. I never knew what kind of ques- 
tions they were that were giv^en out, but the charge came in a general 
form that questions had been given out and that Mr. Flynn was coach- 
ing people on questions. As 1 say, I had taken an interest in it be- 
cause I had access to the questious before they were printed. I knew 
of no excitement, but one of the employes told me the story somewhat 
in detail, not perhaps in full detail, but somewhat .misleading and not 
as full as Mr. Oberly has given it here to-day. 1 will say these ques- 
tions were furnished in advance of their use, and the fact is I think 
that at the time I did not put very much belief in the story because it 
seemed to me improbable. It came to me under promise of secrecy. 
The person seemed to have obtained his facts from Mr. Oberly. 

Mr. Hopkins. Did the person who conveyed this information to you 
make the statement that these questions Avere gi-zen out and being 
used ? 

The Witness. I could not say ; the statement was made in that way. 
My impression was from the, chief examiner first that the examiners had 
given out the questions. It was found that a woman had furnished 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 37 

them to Mr. Fly nil. I was not aware it was the last set of qnestions. 
Afterwards, the charge was that the woman referred to had obtained 
them from Mr, Campbell and had furnished them as a regular thing for 
pay. 

By Mr. EWART : 

Q. Was it regarded as an offense in the office? — A. Certainly; no 
member of the lioard of examiners would have given out any questions 
used or unused. 

Q. Do you know of any instance, while you were clerk in the Civil 
Service Commission, of any one giving out questions'? — A. While I was 
clerk with the Commission, the Commission used to i)ublish specimen 
sets oi questions. For some reason the supply of specimen questions 
ran short, and I know that for a long time there was great impatience 
because the applicants were not furnished with an idea of the kind of 
examination they would have to take. 1 think that afterward provision 
was made by which certain jjersous could see the whole sets of ques- 
tions down-stairs. 

Q. Do you recollect whether, about this time, just before this inves- 
tigation, Campbell showed any special interest about the time new sets 
of questions were to be out ? — A. After hearing the story, 1 did recall 
the fact that at one time this man Campbell perhaps asked me how 
many times we used questions, and when we would have a new set of 
questions out. 

MR. J. H. OBERLY— Recalled. 

By Mr. Hopkins : 
Q. 1 desire to ask Mr. Oberly a question or two. Were you a mem- 
ber of the Commission when Mr. Campbell was promoted? — A. No, sir. 
He was promoted once while I was a member of the Commission. 

Q. Was he promoted on a civil-service examination ? — A. At the time 
he was promoted the Civil Service Commission was not under the rules 
that required him to be examined. 

Q. Was he examined for promotion, or was he promoted without an 
examination as to fitness for promotion ? — A. He was promoted at t-he 
time, I think, without any examination. 

Q. Then he was promoted from one position to another without any 
questions being put to him to see whether he was qualified for the 
place? — A. Yes, sir; he was taken from one place and put into an- 
other. 

Q. The Commission itself was not then under the rules required to 
examine him 1 — A. Not under the rules. 

Mr. Hatton. Did the rules and regulations require an examination 
before promotion at any time when Mr. Campbell was promoted? 

A. 1 think the rules did require an examination. The Commission 
violates the rules when it makes promotions without examination. It 
is not a fair construction of the law and the rules. 

Mr. BoATNER. Do you give this opinion as an expert? 

The Witness. I give my views because the Commission itself has 
determined so. The Commission has repeatedly decided that no pro- 
motion can be made without an examination in any department. 

Mr. KoosEVBLT. You think every promotion should be accompanied 
by any examination in every departmenc ? 

The Witness. Section 7 of the law says that no promotions to the 
classified service shall be made and no promotions therein shall be made 
without examination. 



38 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Mr. Lyman. I think it is due to the Commission and due to Mr. 
Oberly that I should read the statutes and the rules. 

Mr. Lyman here read section 7 of the civil service act. 

Mr. EwAKT. There was one question I failed to ask you in the cross- 
examination and it was whether or not you regarded this list of ques- 
tions furnished by Mr. Camj^bell to this lady as of imi)ortance and would 
they have improved her chances of promotion 1 

A. No more than similar questions furnished to any person and any 
person was entitled to get similar questions. 

Q. Was that information given as special information or as a secret 1 — 
A. I do not know. 

Q. What conclusion did you reach about it? Certainly you reached 
a conclusion upon it at that time. — A. The information that was given 
was information given in an irregular way that might have been given 
in a regular way. He did not furnish anything for j^ay, and that is the 
reason he was not condemned and blamed. 



TESTIMONY OF MISS EMILY M. DABNEY. 

Miss Emily M. Dabney, sworn and examined. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Please give your name, residence, and occupation. — A. Emily M. 
Dabney. I reside at 1015 Twentieth street, and am employed in the 
Department of Labor. 

Q. Have you personal knowledge of this matter of obtaining copies 
through Mr. Campbell of examination papers, and if so, will you state 
to the committee what that knowledge is? — A. I will. I had a mother 
and three sisters to take care of. I was earning only a small salary, and 
I naturally wished to get as much as I could. My mother is in delicate 
health and doctors" bills were coming in. J wished to pass an examina- 
tion, as I thought that would be the only way by which I could be pro- 
moted. I asked a friend to advise me. There was a friend of mine in 
the Second Auditor's Office and she advised me to undergo an ex- 
amination, saying that she and her daughter would help me. She had 
passed a good examination. She told me to get a book of reports of 
what the examination would be and told me to study hard. I found that 
I was backward in what was the hardest part of the examination, and I 
went to see Mr. Flynn and studied under him. 1 have a receipt here for 
the money I paid him for coaching me. I went to him in August, but 
my mother was ill and I told him I could not come regularly. I asked 
him if I might come later, and he said I could do so. I commenced 
taking lessons in November and took them twice a week. 

Just before the examination, which was in December, on Tuesday be- 
fore the examination was to come oft' I said to him, "I feel nervous 
about this examination." He said, " I do not think you will have any 
difficulty. I think you are fully prepared ; but if you are not, I have 
examination questions which are those to be asked." He said, "If you 
will promise not to say anything about it, I will give you these exami- 
nation questions for $25." I said, " I have no money, and do you think 
it is riglit for me to buy these questions ? " He said, " Other people buy 
them. I have these questions, and if you will pay the money for them 
you can have them." I said, " I have no money, but I might borrow it. 
Tliat is a temptation. I will think over it." He said, " I will keep the 
questions for you." I said, " Then I will think over it." Afterwards I 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 39 

said, "Tbis thing is not square, and I will not buy these questions," 
and I did not. I went to the examination room of the Commission. I 
had to be up until 4 o'clock, and I was feeling very badly, as I say. 
When the question was asked if I felt badly, 1 made no reply to it, not 
because I did not feel well, but because I wanted to get through with it. 
I did not get through. I did not do some of the sums. There were five 
examples. 

lu about three weeks after, I met Mrs. Lockhart on the street and I 
told her I did not get through. I said to her, " Well, if I did fail, I 
had the consciousness of knowing that I did not buy the questions." 
She said, "What do you mean by that?" I said, "Professor Flynn 
offered me some questions concerning it, but I did not buy them." She 
said, " It is a fraud, and you ought to mention that you had been offered 
these questions." I said, " It is none of my business, and I do not 
wish to get mixed up with it." I saw Mr. Oberly, and he asked me if 
Flynn had offered me these questions. I told him he had. He said if 
I did not have the money and I could get these papers for $15 he would 
pay the money himself. I thought I would ask Professor Flynn if he 
would let me see the questions. I went to Professor Flynn and told 
him I did not get through on the examination ; and I told him I was 
sick. I said, " By the way, will you let me look at those questions?" 
He said, " Well, if I can find them, I will ; " and finally he produced 
the questions. I said, "Are these the ones you were going to sell me? " 
He said, " Yes, those are the ones." I said, " Would you mind work- 
ing some of the examples'? " And he did so. I then said, " Do you 
mind my taking these home?" He said, "No; but I would like to 
have you bring them back." I mpt Mrs. Lockhart and I told her about 
it. I said to her, " Would you be willing to take them down to Mr. 
Oberly ? " She said, " No ; " that she was on the examining board, and 
she did did not wish to be implicated in it. I then told her to tell Mr. 
Oberly I would be down after office hours. Mr. Oberly waited and I 
saw him. 

I said, "Mr. Oberly, before I give these questions to you I want to 
say to you that I do not want to have my name mentioned. I do not 
care to have anything to do with telling that the questions were being 
bought. I went at once with the questions and gave them to him, 
and told him I wanted them back on Thursday. I went down on Thurs- 
dav and he gave them back to me. He said he had copied them. I did 
not see Mr. Campbell. Mr. Oberly said Mr. Campbell had broken down 
and had confessed that he had given the question out, and Mr. Oberly 
said he had condoned the offense. 

Q. Were these arithmetical questions ? — A. They were. I know they 
were the questions asked me. 

By Mr. Hopkins : 

Q. You think they were the identical questions that were propounded 
to you ? — A. I know they were. 

Q. Do I understand that you learned they were in the handwriting of 
Mr. Campbell ? — A. I know nothing about it. I did not know who 
gave them to Mr. Flynn. I knew they were the same arithmetical ques- 
tions asked me. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. What was the date of the examination that you underwent? — A. 
December 3, 1887. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr, Campbell yourself? — A. 
None whatever. Mr. Oberly knows I did not. I did not know he had 



40 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

anything in the world to do with it. I merely knew the questions were 
offered to me. 

By Mr. BoATNEE : 

Q. They were oifered to you before the 3d of December, and they 
ware the questions asked you on the Sdof December. If you had been 
posted by them you could have passed the examination'? — A. I could 
have passed the examination on the 3d of December if I had known the 
answers to the questions. 

Q. How many days after your examination was it before you went 
up there ? — A. It was about three weeks afterwards. 

Mr. Chairman. Did you state that to Mr. Oberly? — A. I did. I went 
to him with the questions and told him I knew they were the questions 
I was asked. 

Mr. Andrew. Did you remember them ? — A. I did. 

By Mr. Hopkins : 

Q. What did Mr. Oberly say to you when you told him you knew 
they were the identical questions asked you? — A. He said, "■ I will go 
and show these to the other commissioners." 

Q. Did Mr. Oberly say anything about the impropriety of Campbell 
giving those questions out? — A. He did. He said it was wrong, and 
Campbell should not have done it. 

Q. Did he condemn Campbell to you ? — A. He did. 

Q. Did he slate in your presence at that time that the questions were 
in the handwriting of Camj^bell? — A. He did not, because he did not 
know. 

By Mr. Andrew : 

Q. What kind of an examination was that? Were there a number 
of questions, or was it only the arithmetical questions ? — A. It was a 
general variety of questions. 

Q, This copy which Flynn presented to you contained all the ques- 
tions, did it ? — A. No, sir ; only the arithmetical questions. Those were 
the only ones I was afraid of. 

Q. How many questions were there? — A. All the arithmetical ques- 
tions on the examination, also on his paper. 

Q. And none of those questions you answered? — A. I answered some 
of them. 

Mr. Lyman. Did you take the clerk or copyist examination? — 
A. I took the general examination. 

Mr. Oberly. How long was it after I returned them to you? — A. It 
was Thursday that you returned the papers to me. 

The Chairman. Could you state precisely any one of those arith- 
metical questions now ? — A. I could say they were the same. 

The Chairman. I would like to know who has possession of the ques- 
tions which were alleged to have been copied by Mr. Campbell, and 
whether they can be identified ? 

Mr. Boatner (to Mr. Oberly). Did I understand you to say that they 
were questions that had already been used? 

Mr. Oberly. They were questions that had already been used. 

Q. I understood you to state in your testimony that you found at the 
time that Mr. Campbell gave out the questions that they were questions 
that had already been used ? 

Mr. Oberly. Yes, sir. 

Q. This witness states they were questions to be used and were actu- 
ally used in an examination occurring thereafter. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 41 

Mr. Obbrly. The witness states that Professor Flynn told her they 
were to be used, but she says she said she did not come iuto possession 
of the questions until three weeks after the examination. 

Mr. BoATNER. The witness says she went to Mr. Flynn to be coached; 
that Flynn proposed to her that if she had any doubt about passing that 
he would sell her the questions which would be used at the coming ex- 
amination ; that she declined to buy them ; that she found they were 
questions asked at that examination, and that if she had been able to 
answer them she would have passed. I understood you to say that in 
your investigation you discovered that these questions were obsolete ; 
that is to say, they had been used at a previous examination. 

Mr. Obeklt. My recollection is the questions had been printed only 
a day, and therefore they could not have been furnished to Mr. Flynn 
by Mr. Campbell any time before that. These identical questions had 
been used in an examination. My investigation showed that the ques- 
tions had been copied after the examination in which they had been 
used and had been furnished this lady, who had taken them to Mr. 
Flynn after that examination. 

Mr. BoATNER. Campbell had given them out before and not after ? 

The Witness. He confessed to have given them out to Mrs. Smith, 
who was in the Pension Office. 

Mr. Thompson. How many examinations did you take 1 

The Witness. I took one in December, 1887, and I took one in Feb- 
ruary. 

Mr. Thompson. For promotion or entrance into the service ? 

The Witness. Entrance into the service. 

Mr. Thompson. Was it competitive or non-competitive ? 

The Witness. Competitive. 

Mr. Andrew. What became of this set of questions which the wit- 
ness said she received from Flynn after she got done with them"? 
Where are they now ? 

The Witness. I took them back to Mr. Flynn. I told him I would 
carry them back, which I did. 

Mr. Oberly. You gave me to understand that I was not to mention it. 

The Witness. I did. I did not wish my name to appear in that case, 
and I did not care to be mentioned in It. I had brought proof to sub- 
stantiate what I said. 

The Chairman. Are you in office now ? 

The Witness. I am in the Department of Labor. 



TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM E. MORGAN 

William E. Morgan sworn and examined. 
By the Chairman: 

Q. What is your name and where do you reside? — A. William E. 
Morgan ; I reside at 906 Fourteenth street northwest. 

Q. Are you in the Government emjiloy "? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In what capacity *? — A. I am a stenographer in the Bureau of the 
Mint, Treasury Department. 

Q. State to the committee what you know about this Campbell mat- 
ter. — A. Of my own knowledge I know nothing except w hat was told 
to me by Commissioner Oberly. 

Q. State what it was. — A. Mr. Oberly told me that information bad 
reached him that questions were being given out and that he had ob- 
tained a set of questions from Miss Dabney. That he had laid the 



42 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

matter before the Commission, and that Mr. Edgerton had refused to 
investigate it ; that Mr. Lyman had told him it was a serious offense, 
and he said that Mr. Lyman said that any person in the Commission 
who had been guilty of such an offense should be punished. He said 
that Mr. Lyman was inexorable. Mr. Oberly finally found that it was 
Mr. Campbell who had given out the questions, and told Mr. Lyman, 
and that Mr. Lyman then said that his wife was in bad health, and if 
this thing was made public it might result seriously. Mr. Oberly said 
Mr. Campbell was a good clerk, and he did not think the matter amounted 
to much and the offense had been condoned by Mr. Ewart. 

Q. Were you employed by the Commission at that time? — A. I was. 

Q. Did the abstraction or taking of these questions cause any excite- 
ment? — A. It was a secret. 

Q. You say it was a secret? — A. We were told not to make it public. 
I guess it was a secret. 

Q. Why was there so much secrecy about it ! — A. This I could not 
answer ; I do not know. 

Q. Who told you not to say anything about it? — A. Mr. Oberly. 

Q. And Mr. Lyman, too ? — A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Could you give the reason why? — A. No, sir. An investigation 
was then being made. 

Q. Did he state that these questions were worthless ? — A. No ; he 
did not. 

Q. Did you know what the questions were? — A. I did not know, and 
I never saw the questions. I heard they were questions that had been 
taken from the files. 

Q. Would you have given out those questions if any one had called 
for them ? — A. I should not. I would have thought that I had no right 
to, and besides my sense of honor would not have allowed me to do so. 
I would say further that Mr. Oberly's statement coincides substantially 
with what he told me. He said on the stand about what he told me. 

Mr. Oberly. I told you not to say anything about it. 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. There was a great deal of secrecy about the transaction, was there 
not? — A. Oh, yes. I understood that he took the questions surrepti- 
tiously from the files of the Commission. 

Q. He did not let you know anything about it ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did any of the employes in the office know anything about it? — 
A. I think not. 

Q. Do you know how or when he took these questions ? — A. I did not 
see him take the questions, and therefore I can not say, but I under- 
stood that he took a set of questions of an eligible in the files. Mr. 
Doyle had supervision of the room. Campbell, I think, had the run 
of the room, and he could have taken out whatever he saw fit. 

Q. Do you know why he copied them ? — A. I do not. 

Mr. Boatner. Were these questions copied by Mr. Campbell before 
or after they had been used ? 

The Witness. That I do not know. 

Mr. Roosevelt. They must have been used. 

The Witness. In this way ; I understand the questions were copied 
from a set of papers of an eligible, and therefore the questions must 
have been used. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 43 

The Chairman, You always speak of them as questions. Were they 
not questions and answers on the same paper ? 

The Witness. Yes, sir; the questions and answers both were copied 
from the same paper. 

Mr. Roosevelt. The answers were answers made upon an examina- 
tion of a man whicli bad already taken ])lace'? 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BoATNER. Had you seen the questions and answers, and did you 
see them after they were brought back ? 

The Witness. No, sir. 

Mr. Hopkins. Do you know whether they were questions, or ques- 
tions and answers 1 

The Witness. I only know wliat I was told by Mr. Oberly, that they 
were questions and answers. 

The Chairman. This witness is simply stating what Mr. Oberly said 
to him, which is that these questions had been taken. 

Mr. Oberlt. Mr. Morgan has said that if he were guilty of that of- 
fense that he thought he would have been dismissed from the olfice of 
the Commissioner. (To Mr. Morgan) Do I understand you to say that 
if you had been guilty of that offense and I had investigated into the 
facts and the facts were similar to the offense under consideration that 
1 would have insisted upon having you put out "? — A. Judging from that 
action in Mr. Campbell's case I do not think you would. 

By Mr. Lyman : 

Q. You had charge of the certification room? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q, While this list of eligibles were in your possession, did you ever 
show any of those papers to any people who came into the office ? — A. 
To no one except the eligible himself, and then it was the practice. I 
was allowed to do so, but to no others. 

Q. Did you show papers to others? — A. No, sir; except on the order 
of the Commission or the Secretary. 

Mr. Oberly. Have you, under my directions, allowed persons to see 
papers as to the general drift of questions'? 

The Witness. I think only to the eligibles themselves. 

Mt. Oberly. Don't you remember the practice was to allow persons 
to sit down in the room and to see the scope and character of the ques- 
tions, but that they must not take them away f 

The Witness. I do not recollect that, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF S. WALTER FLYNN. 

S. Walter Fly'nn sworn and examined. 
By the Chairman : 

Q. Please state your name. — A. My name is S. Walter Flynn. 

Q. Where do you reside "? — A. I reside at the southwest corner of 
Eighth and K streets northwest. 

Q. Do you know the handwriting of Mr. Campbell, the gentleman 
referred to in this investigation? — A. No, sir; I do not know that I 
ever saw it. 

Q. Did you ever offer Miss Dabney any set of questions ? — A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Therefore you did not make any representation to her about a set 
of questions or let her have a set of questions to be used in a future 
examination"? — A. No, sir. I would like to explain myself. 



44 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By Mr. Hopkins : 

Q. You listened to the evidence of Miss Dabiiey 1 — A. Tes, sir. 

Q. Did you give her a receipt for tlie money she paid you "? — A. 
Tes, sir. 

Q. Is that the receipt? — A. Yes, sir ; that is my handwriting. 

Q. How long did you instruct her prior to the examination *? — A. Miss 
Dabuej^ came to me in August, 1887. She continued lessons for one 
month. She discontinued for want of means to pay me further. She 
called upon me three or four times, and she repeatedly spoke to me of 
her want of means and her little pay and of her sick mother. She 
worked up a certain kind of sympathy in my mind for her. She would 
occasionally bring questions for me to work out, and I would work them 
out for her. I did it as a matter of charity and I thought her a worthy 
object of charity. 

About Christmas Mrs. Smith came with some questions to the insti- 
tute. I remember these matters very well because something occurred 
to impress it upon my mind. She stated she wanted them explained to 
her. They were questions that had been asked at a previous examina- 
tion. We place no importance upon the questions. I supposed from 
her manner that the questions had been given her by someone who had 
passed an examination. I explained these questions to her. Miss Dab- 
ney came to me for the last time about New Year's. She asked about 
undergoing an examination in arithmetic. I showed her these ques- 
tions. She immediately begged me for them. I consented to give her 
a copy of them and I did not consent to give her the original. I said 
to her, "It would be a great indiscretion for me to give out those papers 
in an unknown handwriting." At that time Miss Dabney left immedi- 
ately. The matter went out of my mind. But in three or four days 
after this I remembered I had promised to copy these questions for her. 
When Miss Dabney failed to return immediately I suspected she had 
taken the original copy when I saw her name in connection with it. 
This matter has been explained, but the lady that got the questions 
from me was represented to me as a clerk in the Treasury Department. 
The newspaper rej^orts did not verify my suspicions. I never saw Miss 
Dabney until last spring, when she applied to me. This is all I know 
about it. 

Q. You are in the habit of coaching people for civil-service examina- 
tions; that is your business? — A. Yes, sir; that is part of my occupa- 
tion. 

Q. What was wrong in your giving Miss Dabney the original ques- 
tions ? — A. I placed no value on them. 

Q. Why did you decline to let her have the original? — A. I think 
any business man would decline to give out those papers, not knowing 
in whose handwriting they were. 

Q. What was there about the unknown handwriting? — A. Nothing 
at all. It was to me an unknown handwriting. 

Q. Was there anything that led you to believe that it would give you 
or anybody any trouble if Miss Dabney took the original papers ? — A. 
No. 

Q. Why did you object ? — A. On the ground of ordinary discretion. 
If you asked for a paper and I did not know the handwriting I would 
not give it to you. 

Q. That is a practice of yours ? — A. I never had any experience of 
the kind before. 

Q. How many days after Miss Dabney left did you discover the origi- 
nal questions were gone? — A. Three or four days, or two, may be. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 45 

Q. Did you go to Miss Dabney and ask lier if she bad taken them 1 — 
A. No, sir; I placed no particular value upon them. I never supposed 
she was going to make use of them. 

Q. You say you discovered somebody had taken them and you in- 
ferred she was the one ? — A. Not necessarily, I suspected her because 
she was the last person I had shown them to. 

Q. Did you follow them ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Where did you say you got those questions "? — A. From a lady by 
the name of Mrs. Smith. 

Q. Where did she get them 1 — A. I supposed she got them from 
some one who had passed an examination. 

Q. You did not know where they came from ? — A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. You heard Miss Dabney's testimony ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. She stated that you offered to sell these questions for |15 or for 
$25 "^ — A. That is not true. I considered Miss Dabney too poor to pay 
for them. I never offered to take one cent for them. That is the whole 
matter. 

Q. Was that after she failed to pass *? — A. I suppose so. She said 
she had taken the examination on December 3, and this was later than 
that. 

By Mr. Hopkins : 

Q. How much later ? — A. I could not say. 

Q. You did agree with Miss Dabney to coach her? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You agreed with her that if she was poor and unable to pay for 
her instructions that you would wait upon her? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You also agreed in December that if she took an examination 
and failed you would give her these questions 1 — A. No, sir ; I did not 
know anything about it. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. 1 believe you stated that you considered the questions of no 
value? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have also stated that you gave them to Miss Dabney as a 
matter of charity ? — A. I told her they were questions that had been 
asked at an examination, hence they were more or less important to her 
in so far as the questions would be of the same general kind. 

Q. I understand you to say she came and asked you to work out 
some examples for her? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hopkins. When did she come and ask you to work out ex- 
amples ? 

The Witness. Her month expired in September. After that several 
times she came to see me, and came to take instructions again about 
New Year's. She took the examination in December. 

By Mr. Bwart : 

Q. Did you ever see those questions again ? — A. No, sir. It is false 
that Miss Dabney brought back those questions. 

Q. Were your sympathies at work when you charged this lady $8 for 
instructions ? — A. No, sir; not at that time. 

Mr. Thompson. Did I understand you to say that you left the room, 
and that Miss Dabney had left when you came back and the questions 
were missing? — A. I left the room, and immediately upon m.y return 
Miss Dabney left, and afterwards I found the questions were missing. 

Q. Have you seen the questions from that time to this ? — A. Never. 



46 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By Mr. Hopkins : 

Q. Did you make any investigation about it ? — A. No, sir ; such 
would not be my practice. 

Q. Did you ever speak to anybody about your suspicions of Miss 
Dabney? — A. I did not suppose this investigation referred to Miss 
Dabney until I saw her name in the Star. The lady was spoken of as 
a clerk in the Treasury Department, and I supposed Miss Dabney to be 
a clerk in the War Department. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. Did you ever have a sign in the windows of your institute, or 
about the door, stating that civil service questions were accessible 
there ? — A. I never had such a sign on my house. 

Q. Did you ever have anything of that tenor ? — A. 1:^0, sir. 

By Mr. Hopkins : 
Q. Did you advertise in any manner to the public, or those who were 
seeking civil service examinations, that they could get questions from 
you ? — A. I have a standing advertisement in the paper. I suppose 
you have seen that advertisement. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt: 

Q. What is the wording of it ? — A. " Civil service questions. Send 
10 cents. S. Walter Flynn, Ivy Institute," etc. 

Q. Did that advertisement say that you furnished special questions 
that were to be used in future 1—A. No, sir. 

Q. Those questions were such as were printed every year in our an- 
nual report ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have a little pamphlet of questions and answers? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Mr. BoATNER (to Mr. Oberly). Please state whether or not the ex- 
amination papers which were brought to you were questions which 
were to be asked or had been asked and answered. 

Mr. Oberly. My conclusion and investigation was that they were 
questions that had been used in a preceding examination, and the exam- 
ination had been given by a certain candidate who had passed. 

Eecess until half past 2 o'clock. 

At the expiration of the recess the committee resumed its session. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. I should like to make a statement in the nature of 
a question of privilege, and it is more to avoid a misapprehension of 
the remarks of Mr. Oberly, which you will recollect, Mr. Chairman, in 
reference to promotions being illegal than anything else. As I under- 
stood Mr. Oberly, and I invite correction if I make any misstatement of 
what Mr. Oberly said, it was that the law required examinations in all 
cases of promotion. Am I stating it accurately 1 If not, correct me at 
once. As a matter of fact it was not a charge against the present Com- 
mission by Mr. Oberly, as I understand, because what he referred to 
has been the practice steadily from 1883, when the Commission was first 
organized, to thepresenttime, the practice under all the preceding Com- 
missions, with the full knowledge and approval of Presidents Arthur, 
Cleveland, and Harrison. The present Commission construei. the law 
as the preceding Commissions construed it, with the knowledge and 
assent of Presidents Arthur, Cleveland, and Harrison. And the law 
was so construed by the Commission of which Mr. Oberly was a mem- 
ber and acted upon by that Commission without, so far as we know, 
any formal protest or anything but acquiescence on Mr. Oberly's part. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 47 

It is a questiou of the construction of tlie law which Mr. Oberly now 
says has been misconstrued by all the preceding Commissioners, Includ- 
ing himself, and by the Presidents. But it is something thac reflects 
in no manner on the present Commissions, for we have simply con- 
strued the law and followed the precedents of all preceding Commis- 
sions under preceding administrations. 

In the present force of the Civil Service Commission we follow ex- 
actly the course pursued in the other Departments of the Government 
like the Navy, the Interior, the Post-Office, etc. — we follow the same 
course in promotion in all these with the exception of the War Depart- 
ment. 

TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER C. CAMPBELL. 

Alexander C. Campbell sworn and examined. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. What is your fall name?— A. Alexander C. Campbell. 

Q. Are you now employed by the United States Government ? — A. 
Yes, sir, 

Q. In what capacity ■? — A. As a clerk of the Civil Service Commis- 
sion. 

Q. How long have you been an empIoy6 of the United States Gov- 
ernment ? — A. I first entered the Agricultural Department. I think it 
was in the year 1883. I remained there until the spring of 1885. Then 
I was detailed from the Agricultural Department to the Civil Service 
Commission. I think it was in January or February, along in the 
spring. The same year, in July, 1885, I was appointed as laborer in 
the Civil Service Commission. 

Q. Were you promoted after that time"? — A. I was on the roll as 
laborer until — I could not tell you the date. A year or more after that 
I was promoted from laborer to a position of $900. 

Q. What was that position! — A. The same position that I have 
always held in the office. 

Q. Messenger? — A. No, sir; clerk. I was first appointed as laborer 
and assigned to clerical work. I did the same work when I was ap- 
pointed as laborer as I am now doing as clerk. 

Q. Although you are receiving a higher salary ? — A. Yes, sir. I was 
ajjpointed from laborer to a position at $900, but I can not tell you the 
date, and from that I was appointed to a $1,000, and on the 2d of April 
last I was promoted to a position of $1,200, which I now hold. 

- Q. It has been charged here before this committee that you at one 
time abstracted papers from the files of the office, copied the papers, 
examination papers, together with the answers, and gave them to a 
third party, to be used in preparing for an examination ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. You know what the nature of this investigation is ; you know what 
you have been charged with. Will you give the committee a full account 
of what transpired ; what you did in relation to these examination pa- 
pers that have been spoken of here ? 

The Witness. Is it necessary for me to state what my duties have 
been heretofore f 

The Chairman. You can state that, but that is not the question. 
The question is " Did you ever copy any papers ? " — A. Yes, sir ; I did 
copy a set of j^apers, but 

Q. What purpose had you in copying them ? — A. I copied them for 
my own use ; that is, I copied them simply because I wanted a copy. 



48 CIVIL SEEYICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. What did you want the copy for? — A. I did not copy them for 
aijy particular purpose at the time. 

Q. What reason had you in copying them ? — A. I had no particular 
reason at first for copying them. I admit that I did make a copy of 
the questions with the answers. 

Q. Do you know what year and what month that was in 1 — A. I am 
not sure whether it was in December, 1887, or January, 1888. But I 
am confident, and I will state under oath, that the papers I did copy 
were papers which had been used in the previous examination and that 
1 thought at the time that they would be of no use to anj^body. In 
fact, I told the i)arty to whom I gave them at the time that they would 
be of no use to them, and they simply wanted them in order that they 
might see what the questions were. 

Q. What is the name of the party f — A. Mrs. Smith. 

Q. When did she ask you for a copy of those papers'? — A. I can not 
tell you the date. 

Q. Before you copied them ? — A. No, sir ; it was afterwards, but I 
can not tell you the date. It has always been by instructions 

Mr. LiND. We are not talking about instructions. 
By the Chairman: 

Q. The committee wants to know why you took the trouble of copy- 
ing these papers, and for what purpose they were delivered to a third 
party. Who was this party who asked you for these pa])ers 1 — A. The 
party who asked me for the papers was Mrs. Smith. She is the only 
one who got the papers. 

Q. Did she ask you for them for the purpose of aiding her in an ex- 
amination to be had thereafter ? — A. ISTo, because I told her at the time 
that the papers would be of no use to her in any future examination. 
She so understood it ; that the papers had already been used and would 
not be used again, and she so uuderstood it when I gave her tlie papers. 

Q. When was the examination made on the part of Mr. Oberly and 
Mr. Lyman concerning your conduct in copying these papers ? — A. I can 
not tell you the date of that. 

Q. Did you give them a full statement of the facts ? — A. I did. 

Q. When you made a copy of these papers you had no particular ob- 
ject in view ? — A. Not when I made the copy. 

Q. Did you ever make any copies of any other papers, except these ? — 
A. No, sir. 

Q. The questions and answers were copied ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember whose examination ijapers they were? — A. I do 
not. 

Q. How did you happen to tell Mrs. Smith that the papers would be 
of no particular use to her 1 — A. I knew they were old papers and would 
not be of any use. 

Q. She expected they would ? — A. No, sir. She understood when I 
gave her the papers that they would be of no use to her in any future 
examination. All that she wanted was to get at the nature of the 
questions. 

By Mr. BoATNER : 
Q. She wanted to get the general scope of the examination 1 — A. Yes, 
sir. 

By Mr. Ewakt : 
Q. What did you copy this set of questions from ? — A. I copied them 
from an old set of examination papers. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 49 

Q. In what office ? — A. Well, in the secretary's office, in the certifica- 
tion room, adjoining. I got the papers from the certification room. 

Q. Where did you find them 1 — A. I found them lying with other 
papers in the room. 

Q. Who was in charge of those papers ? — A. I do not know that there 
was anybody particularly in charge. Mr. Morgan was certification 
clerk. 

Q. Did you ask him to be allowed to copy them 1 — A. I do not think 
he was there. 

Q. Was any one there ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Was there any one there at all when you copied these pajiers ? — 
A. I would not say whether there was or not. 

Q. Let me refresh your recollection about that. What time of the 
day did you go into the room to get the papers ? — A. Late in the after- 
noon. 

Q. After office hours *? — A. We had no office hours at that time. 

Q. After 4 o'clock ? — A. It might have been 4 o'clock, but we seldom 
got away before 5 or 6 o'clock. 

Q. After 5 o'clock ? — A. I can not tell you. 

Q. Now, can not you give the committee some recollection about the 
hour? — A. I will say that I do not think I made a full copy at the same 
time. I think it was on two different occasions that I made the copy. 

Q. From a printed list 1 — A. From the set of apj)lication papers that 
were lying in the certification room. 

Q. Printed ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many copies did you find in the room ? — A. I can not tell 
you. 

Q. A dozen copies ? — A. I do not know. There might have been a 
dozen or there might have been fifty. 

Q. How was it tliat you did not get a copy of these printed questions 
and give it to this lady? What was your object in copying them? 
Why was it when you found that number of x>i'i»ted copies that you 
went to the trouble of copying them ? — A. As I have alreadj^ said, I 
copied those long before Mrs. Smith made any request for them. 

Q. How long f — A. I can not tell. 

Q. A month before"? — A. I can not tell you. 

Q. Two weeks before ? — A. I will not say whether it was two weeks 
or not. 

Q. Can you not give the committee some idea? — A. I will simply say 
that I copied these papers before Mrs. Smith made the request. 

Q. What object did you have in copying those papers when it was 
no trouble to secure a printed copy ? — A. I could not have obtained a 
printed copy. 

Q. What object did you have in copying them ? — A. I copied them 
just simply for my own satisfaction. 

Q. How did you propose to be satisfied by copying them ? What ob- 
ject did you have, Mr. Campbell? — A. I had simply the object of copy- 
ing them. 

The Chairman. He has already stated that he had no object in view 
when he copied them. 

By Mr. Ewaet : 
Q. Is it your habit, Mr. Campbell, to copy questions in that way just 
as mere pastime? — A. No, sir j I do not have time. 

Q. How did you have time in this particular instance ? — A. I can only 
say this, that I had leisure time and made the copy. 
3117 4 



50 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Where did you make the copy?— A. At the office. 

Q. It is impossible to give to the committee any idea as to the day *? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The copy was made one evening, and there was no one in the 
room"? — A. I would not say there was no one in the office. The secre- 
tary may have been there, and there might have been some one in the 
other room. 

Q. At the time you took the copy of these questions you say you had 
no object in doing so. Did you inform any one that you intended to 
make a copy?— A. No one. 

Q. Why did you keep it a secret 1 — A. I did not think I needed to 
tell any one about it. As I was giving out instructions to applicants, 
giving out information to aj^plicants, I did not think I needed to tell 
any one. 

Q. You made the copy of these questions three or four weeks before 
Mrs. Smith asked you for them ? — A. I will not say as to the time. 

Q. At the time yon made a copy of those papers they were not being 
used in the examination-room? — A. No, sir. 

Q. You swear to that positively ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you occupy a position in the Civil Service Commission that 
enabled you to know what questions were being used? — A. No, sir; I 
will state here that during the whole time I have been in the Commission. 
I have never yet seen a set of questions that have not been used in some 
examination. 1 have had no way and no desire to see any questions. 

Q. How was it that you had a desire to copy these questions? — A. 
As I have already stated, I copied them for my own satisfaction ; that 
was all. 

Q. Who first apprised you of the fact that there were some harsh 
comments being made as to the abstraction of these papers ? — A. Mr. 
Lyman. 

Q. In what way was your attention called to the matter? — A. He 
called me into his room one evening late after 

Q. Can you fix the date ? — A. No, sir ; I can not tell you. He pro- 
duced the papers and handed them to me and asked me if I had ever 
seen them. I looked at them and told him I had. He then said he 
wanted me to make a full statement of the facts ; how I came to give 
out the papers. I made a full statement to him and we had quite a 
lengthy conversation. Then he started for home, and that was the 
only interview that I had with him before seeing Mr. Oberly. 

Q. Please let the Commission have that statement, 

The Witness. I do not quite understand you. 

Mr. EwAET. State the conversation that occurred between yourself 
and Mr. Lyman when your attention was called to the fact that these 
papers had been abstracted and Mr. Lyman wanted an explanation. — 
A. Mr. Lyman handed me the papers and asked me if I had ever seen 
the papers before. 

Q. You have been over that. Statue the rest of the conversation. — 
A. He then said — I can not remember the exact words — but he said in 
substance that it was a serious matter and that it should be investi- 
gated. 

Q. "A serious matter and that it should be investigated " ? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. What was your reply to that ? — A. My reply was that I made a 
copy of these papers and that I had given them to — giving the party's 
name — and that I supposed that the papers were destroyed. 

Q. Did you instruct this Mrs. Smith to destroy these p.g,pers ?— rA. 
She told me she would. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 51 

Q. Did you request her to"? — A. I did. 

Q. Why ?■— A. Because I did not want the questions to go any farther 
than they had. 

Q. Whj'^ 1 — A. I can not give any reason for that. 

Q. You had some object in telling her to destroy them I — A. Because 
I did not think that they would be of any use to anybody at all, and I 
did not want to have them spread out in my handwriting. No doubt 
the same questions had been published in one of the reports. 

Q. Did Mr. Lyman appear to be agitated when he called your atten- 
tion to this matter ? — A. He seemed to feel it very much. 

Q. He was very much disturbed about ib 1 — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Very indignant ? — A. He felt very much hurt about it. 

Q. Do you not know that Mr. Lyman used some pretty strong lan- 
guage on that occasion ? — A. I can not tell you what language he used. 

Q. I ask you if he did not use some very severe language to you on 
that occasion ? — A. I do not know but what it might be considered 
strong language by some. 

Q. Did he not reproach you bitterly for taking the papers from the 
files and copying them? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you tell him then that you had no object whatever in copying 
those papers ? — A. I think I told him this 

Q. I ask this question : Did you tell him then that you had no object 
in copying the questions ? — A. I do not think I told him 

By Mr. LiND : 
Q. What did you tell him 1 — A. I think I told him this, that in copy- 
ing the questions and giving them to the person I did it with no wrong 
intention at all. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Did you tell Mr. Lyman at the time when he was using this re- 
proachful language to you that you had no object in copying the ques- 
tion, except merely to satisfy your curiosity, or to satisfy yourself? — 
A. I do not know whether I did or not. 

Q. You must recollect what you told him ? — A. Well, I do not. 

Q. You did not feel very comfortable that day yourself"? — A. No, sir; 
and I have not since. 

Q. You felt agitated ?— A. Yes, sir ; I felt agitated, because I did not 
know what the result would be. At the same time I did not feel that 
I had violated the law at all. I had no such intention, and I did not 
feel that I had committed any violation of the law. 

Q. Was your attention ever called to these sections of the civil-serv- 
ice law, which forbid any employe in the service to give out any special, 
general, or secret information to any person who would probably be an 
applicant for examination ? — A. Never. 

Q. At the time you abstracted these questions and gave them to this 
lady in the Pension Office, you did not think you were violating any 
law at all ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Nor any rule of the Commission ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Mr. Campbell, I will ask you this question, going back to the de- 
struction of these questions: Did I understand you to give any reason 
why you requested this lady to destroy these questions ? — A. 1 will state, 
that I did not want the questions to go any further, because they were 
in my handwriting. I did not know what might come out of them. 
The questions were given to her confidentially, and she was to destroy 
them. 



62 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Why did you give them to her confidentially ? — A. Because she 
asked for them. I gave them to ner with the distinct understanding, 
as I have already said, that the questions would be of no use to any- 
body at all in any future examination. After she had looked them over 
and got through with them she was to destroy them. 

Q. Do you recollect giving a set of questions to any one else? 

The Witness. A copy ? * 

Mr. EwART. Yes, sir. 

The Witness. No, sir. 

By Mr. EwART: 

Q. At any time? — A. No, sir. 
By the Chairman : 

Q. Either the original or a copy "^ — A. No, sir, no further than this. 
I will state that I have been always instructed to give an applicant as 
much information as I could concerning the examination. When we 
have had reports that contained specimen questions, I have given them 
to applicants, such as a set of questions in arithmetic, dictation, or any 
particular subject that they thought they might fail on. I would mark 
the specimen questions in blue pencil and turn down the leaf. 

By Mr. EwAET : 

Q. Did you ever furnish any copy of questions ? — A. No, sir ; never 
in my life. 

Q. Did you hear Mr. Oberly's evidence? — A. I did. 

Q. Were you reprimanded by Mr. Oberly ? — A. I was. 

Q. Can you give the committee about the substance of that repri- 
mand ? — A. No, sir ; not any more than about Mr. Lyman. He told me 
that he had made a thorough investigation of the case, and he did not 
think that 1 had committed any wrong. 

Q. And hence did not reprimand you? — A. He did reprimand me. 

Q. He told you he did not think you had done any wrong, and then 
proceeded to reprimand you ? — A. No, sir; I will not say that. He told 
me that he did not think I had done any wrong at all, only he thought 
that I ought to have consulted him or the Commission before I gave 
out the questions, or something to that effect. 

Q. What did he rebuke you for? — A. lean not recollect what his 
reprimand was any more than that he called me into his offi.ce, and I 
was there quite a while. 

Q. He told you that he did not consider that you had been guilty of 
any serious offense ? — A. He did not think that I had been guilty of 
anything that would cause my dismissal. 

Q. When Mr. Oberly had this talk with you did he show any indica- 
tion of being indignant? — A. I do not know. 

Q. At any rate you did not feel very much reimmanded ? — A. Yes, 
sir ; I felt a good deal reprimanded. 

Q. Did Mr. Oberly seem to be at all indignant in any way? Did he 
exhibit any indignation in admonishing this good-natured reprimand 
to you? — A. I think after he made the ftill investigation he was con- 
vinced that there was nothing iu it. 

Q. Did he not regard it as a serious breach of discipline? 

Mr. LiND. It strikes me that that is rather immaterial. 

Mr. BoATNER. I would like to have the resolution under which we 
are proceeding read. The testimony of this witness has been a reca- 
pitulation of conceded and admitted facts, and this examination can 
have no object except to humiliate the witness, and I do not think that 
this committee ought to lend itself to anything of that sort. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 53 

The Chairman. I think this witness has been charged with taking 
papers illegally and copying them, and giving the copies to outside par- 
ties, and the question directly before this committee is whether he did 
an illegal act, and whether the Commissioners were justified in condon- 
ing that act; and I think the examination in that regard is perfectly 
proper, so as to show fully the character of the witness. I think that 
ought to be gone into very thoroughly. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. 1 wish to ask one or two questions which may not be entirely ap- 
propriate on this branch of the inquiry, but while the witness is here I 
will ask him. I understand you to say that you had been employed in 
the Agricultural Department before going to the Commission? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q, In what capacity were you employed ? — A. I was in the seed di- 
vision. 

Q. You were transferred as a laborer to the Civil Service Commis- 
sion"? — A. While in the Agricultural Department, before the Commis- 
sion had any funds to appoint anybody as a laborer, I was detailed from 
the Agricultural Department to the Commission. 

Q. As a laborer? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you were put to work at a desk at clerical work ? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. At a salary of $060 ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long did .you continue in that capacity? — A. I continued in 
that capacity for about a year ; I should think it was about a year. 

Q. Then you were promoted under the rules then in force to aperma- 
ment clerkship ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At 1900 ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You continued then under the $900 salary at the same desk and 
in the performance of exactly the same duties you had been discharging 
at the $660 salary ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have since been promoted to a $1,200 place ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you still occupy the same desk ? — A. Yes, sir; and do the same 
work I did when 1 originally entered the Commission. I have always 
been in the room of the secretary. 

Q. What is the general character of yocr employment; the work 
you are required to do ? — A. My work is giving out application papers 
and the rej^orts. I give applicants such information as I have time to 
give them as regards specimen questions, which are printed in our re- 
ports. 

Q. Let me go back a moment. When you were promoted from the 
$660 place to the $900 place, did some other person take your place ? — 
A. No, sir. 

Q. When you were promoted to the $1,200 position, did some other 
person take the $900 place? — A. No, sir ; I am doing the same work 
now that I did when I first entered the service, in 1885. It is merely 
an increase of salary and an increase of work. 

Q. Do I understand that there was a $900 clerkship provided for in 
that bureau ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you filled that place? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has that clerkship been abolished ? — A. No, .sir ; it has been filled 
by promotion. 

Q. Well, then, it was filled when you passed beyond it? — A. When 
I was appointed to the $1,000 position somebody else, I forget who, got 
the $900 place. 



54 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Now your duties as a clerk require you, among other things, to 
furnish applicants for examination with such information as the board 
authorizes you to give out? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is that information, and in what form does the board per- 
mit it to go out ? — A. In the report there are printed specimen ques- 
tions of all examinations held by the Commission. 

Q. The annual reports of the Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The information you furnished then, or were authorized to fur- 
nish, was simply to deliver a copy of the report to applicants ? — A. 
Well, if an applicant should come in, if anybody in town, for instance, 
should come into the office and make a request for a set of application 
papers and a report and ask me to give him information concerning the 
examination, I would turn to the report, and, as I have already stated, 
mark the questions and give him such information as I had time to give 
about what the examination would be, and also furnish him the necessary 
papers. 

Q. The papers containing an examination already passed by some 
applicant were put on file and are constantly kept on file in the rooms 
of the Commission'? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who has charge of those papers'? — A. The certification clerk has 
charge of those papers ; they are not in the room I am in. 

Q. You are not, then, in the room where those papers are kept; you 
are nob employed there'? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you any official connection with that room"? — A. Yes, sir; 
I very often have to go in there, if a person comes in and wishes to 
look at his papers. 

Q. Does the character of your employment authorize you to examine 
those papers to which I have just referred — the examination papers? — 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Was it a breach of the rules of the Commission for you, on your 
own motion, to go and examine any of those papers? — A. No, sir; I 
did not consider that it was. 

Q. Did you consider it within the range of your authority to look at 
those papers whenever you pleased ? — A. I did. 

Q. You state it as a fact that you did have that authority ? — A. I had 
that authority as much as any clerk. 

Q. Well, the certification clerk had charge of them. — A. I know he 
has charge of them, but if a i^erson should come into our room — the sec- 
retary's room — and wish to look at his papers, I have always had author- 
ity to go and get the papers for him, take them from the files, instead of 
asking the certification clerk to do it. 

Q. t)o I understand you to say that if any person who has passed an 
examinatiou, who has been examined, and whose papers are on file in the 
room of this certification clerk, comes to you and desires to examine those 
papers personally, that you have authority to go and get them and let 
him look at them — A. I think I have, but I should not take that authority 
on myself; I should first ask the certification clerk for the papers, and 
nine times out of ten he would tell me to go and get them. 

Q. When you got the papers of which you made a copy, did you do 
it secretly ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you go into the room and abstract them from the files when 
no one else was present ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Then who else was present ? — A. I could not tell you who was 
present. 

Q. When you took them from the files what did you do with them ■? — 
A. I took them to my desk and made the copy. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 65 

Q. But- 1 understood you to say that you did not make the whole copy 
in one day ^ — A. No, sir. 

Q. You took them from the files and copied some of it ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And then you got them again on some other day and finished 
them? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And put them back f — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ISo-w how long was it between the first time you got them and 
when you got them again '? — A. The next day or the day after that. 

Q. The next day or the day afterwards you returned to the certifica- 
tion room and got those papers again ?— A. I would not swear that I 
had the same papers. 

Q. Well, the same class of papers ? — A. Ves, sir. 

Q. What did you do with them ?— A. I kept them in my possession 
until! gave them to my friend. 

Q. The original papers did you take them to the desk and complete 
the copy ? — A. The copy was all made at my desk. 

Q. Did you take the original papers from the house in which the 
Commission hold their sessions ?— A. No, sir ; 1 never took them from 
the building. 

Q. After you made this copy, what did you do with it ?— A. The copy 
I retained. 

Q. Where did you keep it ?— A. I kept it in my desk. 

Q. Did you examine it 1 — A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you expecting to take an examination yourself? — A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Were you expecting, at the time you made the copy, to permit any 
person to examine it ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. I understand, then, that you had absolutely no motive in making 
the copy *? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Who was this lady to whom you gave these papers ? — A. A clerk 
in the Pension Office. 

Q. By the name of Mrs. Smith ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you acquainted with her at the time you made this copy ? — 
A. Yes, sir ; I had known her for a long time. 

Q. Intimately ? — A. She was a friend of mine, and I was a friend of 
hers ; there was no great intimacy that I know of. 

Q. Were you connected with her in any way *? — A. No, sir. 

Q. She had never spoken to you up to this time about procuring her 
a copy of these papers 1 — A. No, sir ; I do not think she had. 

Q. Had she been consulting you up to this time touching an antici- 
pated examination ? — A. When she first took the examination and Avent 
into the service she came to me and I gave her a set of blanks and the 
report which contained the specimen questions. She took what is called 
the limited examination. I marked the questions and turned down the 
leaf, and gave her the necessary papers. 

Q. How long was that before she was expecting to take an examina- 
tion for promotion ? — A. I do not know. 

Q. Had she said anything of that sort to you? — A. I do not remem- 
ber that she had. 

Q. About the time you made this copy ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Had she been discussing the question of her promotion with you 
before that time ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. But you remember the fact that she desired or expected a promo- 
tion. — A. I knew that she would probably expect to take an examina- 
tion for promotion whenever her time expired so that she could. 



56 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. How long after you made the copy was it before you had any con- 
versation with her about it ? — A. 1 could not tell you. 

Q. How long"? — A. I could not tell you. 

Q. A long time or a short time "? — A. I should think it was some time. 

Q. In the mean time this copy was lying in your desk. How long did 
it lie in your desk "? — A. 1 could not tell you how long the papers laid 
in ray desk. 

Q. How did Mrs. Smith find out that you had this copy at all ?~A. I 
think I told her I had a copy. 

Q. How did you happen to tell her f — A. I could not tell you how I 
happened to tell her, any more than that we had a conversation and she 
said she wanted to see a set of questions. I told her, if I remember 
rightly, that I had a copy of the questions which I had copied from an 
old set, but that they would be of no use to her or anybody else ; that 
they had already been used and would not be used again. 

Q. Right in that connection, unless there is something more you wish 
to say 

The Witness. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know how long before the date of your making the copy 
the questions had been usedf — A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. Do you know whether they had been recently used ? — A. I could 
not tell anything about the time. I only know that they were questions 
which had been used, and I knew, at least I had every reason to think, 
that they never would be used again. I told Mrs. Smith so when I gave 
them to her. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. At that time those seeking promotions in the Department were 
required to pass a written examination ? — A. Tes, sir. 

Q. I believe you stated awhile ago that you knew nothing about the 
questions prior to the time they were printed "? — A. No, sir. 

Q. You knew nothing about the formiilatiou of questions'? — A. I have 
never- seen a set of questions 

Q. You knew nothing about the formulation of questions *? — A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Did you know anything about the regulations as to how questions 
were to be used ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you at that time know that questions used in a general exami- 
nation might be used in a promotion examination 1 — A. No, sir ; I did 
not. 

Q. What did you think about it ? — A. I had no knowledge about it 
at all. 

Q. I did not ask you for any knowledge. What did you think about 
it ? — A. I did not think they would, from the fact that I had been told 
that the questions once used were not to be used again. 

Q. I thought you said a moment ago that you knew nothing about 
the regulations in regard to questions ? — A. I knew nothing further 
tkan what I say now. 

Q. You had been told that they would never be used again ? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Never again for a promotion examination ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Were these questions of such a character that you could have 
made the answers yourself? — A. Yes, sir; I think I could. 

Q. Without any coaching or assistance at all '? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever passed a written examination since you have been 
in the service ? — A. Yes, sir. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 57 

Q. When? — A. I took an exaniinatiou iu 1883, I think it was, while 
I was in the Agricultural Department. 

Q. I had reference to the Civil Service Commission. — A. No, sir; 
but I was on the eligible list when I was appointed in the Civil Service 
Commission. 

Q. Since then you have never taken a written examination ? — A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Do you remember whether the answers in these papers and ques- 
tions that you selected for copying were graded high or not "^ — A. No, 
sir; I do not remember anything about it. 

By the Chairman : 
Q. You never looked as to that point? — A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Lind : 
Q. You did it simply mechanically ? — A. That is all. I took the first 
set of questions that 1 came to. I could not tell whether the grade was 
high or low. 

By Mr. Andrew : 
Q. When you copied that set of questions what was in your mind ? — 
A.. When 1 made the copy of them I made it after the business of the 
office was over. At that time I had to remain there to do the copying 
of the letters, and very frequently I would not get out until 5 or 6 
o'clock. When the business of the office would be closed the Commis- 
sion would be in session and I would have to wait for the letters. As 
I have already stated, 1 had no particular object in copying them. 

By the Chairman : 
., Q. Did you have access to the room where those papers were kept 
after 5 or 6 o'clock ? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you returned the same night ? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. I believe you said that you cautioned this Mrs. Smith to destroy 
the questions ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, if you were so careful about your handwriting why did you 
not ask their return 1 — A. Because I had confidence enough in her to 
believe that she would do as I requested. 

Q. Why have them destroyed instead of having them returned ? — A. 
I did not want them. " Why I requested that they should be destroyed," 
because I did not want that anybody else should see them but her. 

By Mr. Andrew : 
Q. Do you want the committee to understand that you copied that 
set of questions because you had nothing else to do — merely as a pas- 
time? — A. Yes, sir. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Is it for this reason, that they might be taken advantage of here- 
after, that you wanted them destroyed °? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In what way ! — A. They would have been of no use to anybody. 

Q. Were you afraid that anybody might get hold of them ? — A. The 
papers being in my own handwriting, I did not want anybody else to 
see them. 

Mr. Oberly. Do you mean to say that you made to Mr. Lyman and 
myself the statement, in substance, which you have just made to this 
committee ? 

The Witness. No, sir. 



58 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. In what way do your statements differ? — A. I have not thought 
that I was making the same statement. I am simply stating the fact to 
you about how I came to copy the papers. 

Q. Were you not called upon to make the same statement to Mr. Ly- 
man and Mr. Oberly ? You were examined by Mr. Oberly and Mr. Ly- 
man ; were you not called upon to tell the truth and the whole facts in 
the case ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say now that your statements differ ; in what way do they dif- 
fer ? — A. I do not know in what way they differ. 

Mr. Oberly. You stated to this committee that you made a copy of 
the questions before you were requested to do so by Mrs. Smith. Did 
you state that to Mr. Lyman and myself, that Mrs. Smith asked you for 
a copy of those questions after you had made them and that you did not 
know at the time you made the questions that they were for Mrs. Smith ? 

The Witness. I do not know as I said that. 

Mr. Oberly. Did you not tell me that you made them for Mrs. Smith 
at her request ? 

The Witness. I will state this, that Mrs. Smith had asked me pre- 
vious to that if I could not get her a set of questions. 

Mr. Oberly. As a specimen of the questions to be used in the ex- 
amination that she might take for promotion. 

The Witness. I told her that I could only get her a set of the ques- 
tions which had previously been used and which would be of no use to 
her. 

Mr. Oberly. You mean no use to her in the sense that those identi- 
cal questions would not be used in any examination that she might take 
for promotion 1 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. If what you stated at the time to Mr. Lyman and Mr. Oberly is 
true, how did you come to make this statement before the committee, 
that you made a copy of these papers before anybody ever asked you to 
make a copy °? You certainly made that statement, did you not ? — A. 
If I did I did not understand the question. 

Q. You have been examined here. You have made the statement here 
repeatedly. You make a positive statement that you made the copy, and 
that at the time you did not make it for any particular object; you had 
not been asked by anybody to do so. You made that statement here, as 
the evidence will show. You say now you did not understand the 
questions. — A. Yes; I did not understand them in the light you put 
them now. 

Mr. Lyman. I would like to ask if you did not say to me, when I 
questioned you about this matter, that Mrs. Smith had asked you for 
the questions, had asked you for any information or questions that 
would give her an idea of the character of the examination, and that 
you had taken these questions to her? 

The Witness. Yes, sir ; I think I did. 

Mr. Lyman. In your statement to me it may have been my fault in 
not questioning you on that point. In your statement to me at that 
time you stated that you copied these questions for Mrs. Smith, leav- 
ing the impression on my mind that you copied them after she had 
asked you for them. You have stated to the committee that you made 
the copy before Mrs. Smith asked you for them. 

The Witness. When Mrs. Smith asked me for the questions I think 
I had the copy then. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 59 

By the Chaieman : 

Q. Are you positive? — A. I thiuk I am. I tbink I told Mr. Oberly 
and Mr. Lyman both that Mrs. Smith asked me for the questions. 

Q. I understood you to say just now that j'ou told ex-Commissioner 
Oberly at the time that the way you came to make a copy of these pa- 
pers was that Mrs. Smith asked you for a copy of the papers. — A. Mrs. 
Smith asked me for a copy of the questions that she might see the 
nature of the examination. 

Q. The whole point is this, Mr. Campbell, we do not want to get you 
to make any misstatements here before this committee. We take it for 
granted that you intend to tell the truth 

The Witness. 1 do. 

Q. To give the facts just as they are, but you certainly have made 
two statements before this committee within a half an hour. You have 
stated to this committee that you took those papers and copied them 
without having any object in view. 

Mr. Andrew. For a pastime. 

The Chairman. He did not use that word. 

Mr. Andrew. I put a question to him that wav, and he answered 
" yes." 

The Chairman. Then you stated in reply to a question put by Mr. 
Oberly that at the time the investigation was going on before the Com- 
mission you told both him and Mr. Lyman that the way you happened 
to copy these questions was because you were asked for the questions 
by Mrs. Smith. We want to reconcile those two statements if we can 
before you get off the stand. Have you any explanation to make*? 

Mr. Oberly. Did you not state to me that you made this copy of 
the questions and gave them to her and that you did it in accordance 
with her request 1 

The Witness. I will not deny it. 

Mr. Oberly. She did not ask you for these identical questions ? 

The Witness. No, sir. 

Mr. Oberly. She did ask you for such questions as she would have 
to answer when she asked for promotion, which would take place prob- 
ably two or three or four months afterwards "? 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Andrew : 
Q. Was the statement that you made to Mr. Lyman and Mr. Oberly 
true? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. LiND : 

Q. Then what you have stated here is untrue ? — A. I do not know 
what you refer to. 

Q. The statement you made to the committee to-day is untrue to the 
extent it conflicts with the statement you made to Commissioners Ly- 
man and Oberly? 

Mr. Oberly. I do not think the witness understands the question. 

By Mr. Lind : 
Q. Now, as we understand your evidence, Mr. Campbell, we under- 
stand that you went before the Commissioners and explained to them 
that upon the repeated requests of Mrs. Smith you copied certain ques- 
tions and answers and gave them to her at her instance. As we un- 
derstand your testimony given here to-day it is, in substance, that hav- 
ing leisure one evening and believing it not to be wrong, not having 
been cautioned against it, you stepped into the certification room on two 



60 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

or three diiferent evenings as your time permitted, copied certain ques- 
tions, put them away in your desk, and afterwards, Mrs. Smith having 
asked you for sample questions of the character of examinations, you 
gave them to her. Now, which one of these statements is right, and 
which one is misunderstood by the committee? — A. The evidence that 
I gave to Mr. Oberly and Mr. Lyman are the facts in the case, what- • 
ever testimony 1 have given here now 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Is incorrect so far as it conflicts with the statement made to Mr. 
Oberly and Mr. Lyman? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. Mr. Campbell, you recollect being called before 
Governor Thompson and myself in regard to this matter, do you not? 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Roosevelt. Some time last fall. Did you not then tell us, in 
substance, that you had copied these questions at the request of Mrs. 
Smith ? You remember coming before Governor Thompson and my- 
self last fall 1 It is my understanding — and I think I may say Governor 
Thompson's — that you then testified to us (correct me if I am misstating 
the facts) that you copied these questions at the request of Mrs. Smith. 
Is our understanding correct? 

The Witness. I do not remember whether it was put in just that way 
or not. I think I told you at the time that I copied the questions and 
gave them to Mrs. Smith, and that you thought best that she should 
be summoned 

Mr. EoosEVEi-T. You testified that you copied the questions and 
gave them to Mrs. Smith. 

The V/iTNESS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Roosevelt. Now, did you copy them a long time ahead for your 
amusement? 

The Witness. No, sir ; I do not know as I did. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I do not recollect, and I believe I am correct in 
stating that Governor Thompson does not recollect, that you said any- 
thing to us about a request to destroy those paj)ers. 

The Witness. I think I did. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I do not recollect it. 

Mr. Thompson. I do not either. 

The Chairman. I will ask at this point if the Commissioners have 
decided to examine any one 1 Mr. Doyle is here and ready to be ex- 
amined. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN T. DOYLE. 

John T. Doyle sworn and examined as follows : 

By the Chairman : 

Q, What is your name ? — A. John T. Doyle. 

Q. You are now in the Government service? — A. I am. 

Q. In what capacity ? — A. I am secretary to the United States Civil 
Service Commission. 

Q. Will you state to this committee, briefly, all that you know in 
relation to this abstraction of a copy of papers which you have heard 
discussed here ? — A. My first knowledge of the matter was obtained at a 
meeting of the Commission at which I was present as secretary, and of 
which 1 made minutes of the proceedings. Messrs. Edgerton and Lyman 
were present. It was at a meeting, as nearly as I can remember, early 
in February, of 1888 j either a ^&w weeks before or a few weeks after that 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 61 

time. Commissioner Oberly came into the room with a manuscript, 
which he laid before Commissioner Edgerton, who was president of the 
Commission, and stated that they were a copy of questions which had 
come into his hands upon the promise that he would return them. He 
laid them before the Commission for its investigation. Commissioner 
Edgerton showed a disposition not to go into the matter to investigate 
whether the questions had been written by some one connected with 
the Commission for an improper purpose. Mr. Lyman took the manu- 
script from the table, examined it, and I think, in answer to a question 
by Mr. Oberly, stated that they were questions that had been used in 
examinations of the Commission. 

Q. In order to save time I would like to put this question to you. 
Have you been present during the examination to-day ? — A. I have. 

Q. Did you hear the statement made by Mr. Oberly "? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you agree with him in all points? — A. 1 agree with him in all 
points of which Mr. Oberly stated that I had cognizance, with one ex- 
ception. 

Q. Give the exception. — A. I can not recall distinctly the interval of 
time that elapsed between the meeting of the Commission at which Mr. 
Oberly brought the attention of the Commissioners to the fact of his 
having this manuscript and the time when the questions were taken 
from the safe for the purpose of comparing the handwriting of the ques- 
tions with the handwriting of a clerk to the Commission. 

Q. What is your recollection about that ? — A. I can not state the 
length of time further than it was certainly not more than a few days. 
It may have been the following day, or two or three days subsequently, 
or four days subsequently. I know it was a short interval of time. 

Q. With that exception do you agree with Mr. Oberly ? — A. With 
that exception, and in all matters in which Mr. Oberly stated that I 
had personal knowledge, I agree in his statement. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions to be asked ? 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. Did you know Campbell's handwriting? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know it at that time ? — A. I had not examined the manu- 
script 

Q. Did you know his handwriting at that time? — A. When I first 
took up the manuscript for the purpose of ascertaining in whose hand- 
writing it was, it occurred to me it was in the handwriting of Mr. 
Campbell. 

Q. Had this manuscript been in the hands of Mr. Lyman previous to 
that time ? — A. It had. It was in the hands of Mr. Lyman at the meet- 
ing of the Commission at which Mr. Oberly brought the manuscript 
to its attention, and it was at 5 o'clock in the afternoon on a winter 
day 

Q. I simply want to know whether it was in his possession ? — A. He 
saw the manuscript. 

Q. He did not recognize it Or conjment upon whose handwriting it 
was ? — A. I have no recollection now of his saying so at that time. 

Q. What has become of those papers ? — A. At the time I brought 
Mr. Lyman's attention to the handwriting, and said that I believed the 
handwriting was that of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Lyman made a remark in 
turning over the manuscript that it had occurred to him when he had 
first seen the papers that it might have been Mr. Campbell's handwrit- 
ing — that the possibility had occurred to him then. 

Q. Do you know what has become of those pax^ers? — A. I do not. 



62 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION, 

Q. It is your duty as secretary to keep the files of papers of the 
Commission, is it not I — A. It was ; but this was a manuscript copy of 
questions. 

Q. We know what it was very well. You did not place it on file. — 
A. No, sir. 

Q. You do not know in whose possession it went, do you 1 — A. I 
parted with the paper. It was left with Mr. Lyman. 

Q. Can you tell us, from your recollection, as to whether the hand- 
writing was natural or at all disguised ? — A. It did not occur to me that 
it was disguised. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Did you examine the i)aper in such a way as to mark the questions 
and answers that were on the paper for the purpose of knowing whether 
these questions had been used at that time for an examination ? — A. 
-Ko, sir. 

Q. You did not look at the questions and answers for the purpose 
of determining whether the Commission at that time had examined 
persons on questions similar to those ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Was that examined by any one in the Commission at that time ? — 
A. I understood that it was the subject of investigation by Mr. Oberly j 
and the chief examiner. 

By Mr. Oberly : 

Q. Did you hear Mr. Campbell's statement to me, made at that time, 
in regard to the manner in which, and the reason why, he made this copy 
of the questions ? — A. No, sir ; I was not present. 

Q. Did you ever have any con versation with Mr. Camjibell on that sub- 
ject ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he explain to you the reason ? — A. No, sir. 

Mr. Stone. That does not seem to be a subject of controversy any 
longer. 

' By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. Does this witness recollect whether the answers were upon those 
papers as well as the questions ? — A. It is my recollection that the an- 
swers were copied. 

Q. These lists of questions were printed, were they not ; I mean this 
list which Campbell copied ? — A. The list that he made the copy from ? 

Q. Yes. — A. I did not make an investigation 5 it was usual for the 
questions to be r>rinted. 

Mr. LiND. He does not know whether these questions were printed or 
not? 

Mr. Boatner. He knows that all the questions are printed. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Do you know how many copies are generally made ? — A. The num- 
ber of copies printed of any series will vary according to the number of 
applicants to be examined. 

Q. Just give us an idea of the number of copies generally made ? — A. 
From three to five hundred copies as the exigencies may require. 

Q. At the time that this list of questions was abstracted from the 
files by Campbell did you know whether there was a large number of 
copies on file? — A. 1 did not. The copies were in the possession of the 
chief examiner. Mr. Campbell would not have had access to tbera. 

Q. Would it be possible for you to procure for us a list of those ques- 
tions printed ? — A. Not without consulting the chief examiner. 



. CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 63 

Q. Upon consulting the chief examiner could you furnish this com- 
mittee with a list of those questions ? 

Mr. LiND. Let me understand what questions you refer to. 

Mr. EwART. The identical list of questions copied by Campbell. 

Mr. LiND. I understand the copy is not in existence. 

Mr. EwART. I do not mean the copy which Campbell made, but I 
mean the printed copy. There are a number of printed lists of these 
questions always on file with the Commission. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. Do you know what list these questions were copied from ? Could 
you go to your file and take out the list of questions copied by Mr. 
Campbell 1 — A. If I knew the series. 

Q. Do you know the series ? That is what I asked you. Do you 
know what list of questions was copied ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Who examined that "? — A. Mr. Commissioner Oberly, and I think 
Major Webster examined it. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Say, in December, 1888 ; could you not procure a copy of the 
questions used in that month ? — A. If the Commission would have on 
its record unused examination questions printed of that series. 

Q. What disposition is generally made ot those printed lists; are 
they destroyed ? — A. They are destroyed, but we reserve a small num- 
ber of copies. It is the practice to preserve ten or fifteen. 

Mr. LiWD. The witness has already said that he has no knowledge of 
where those questions are. 

Q. I am asking this question for my own information, to ascertain if 
it would not be possible to get a copy of these printed lists. He says 
that they always kept on file fifteen or twenty copies. 

Mr. Lind. He has stated that he did not know wliat series it was. 

Mr. Ewart. He says that you can ascertain the fact. December, 
1887, is the date. 

Mr. Lind. What purpose would they serve if we had them ? 

The Witness. It is absolutely impossible to identify the papers. I 
can not get them. 

Mr. Lind. The written questions are lost and it is impossible to tell 
which set of printed questions were used, as I understand it. 

By Mr. Andrew : 

Q. Yousawthismanuscriptcopy of questions which was presented? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the examination on ? — A. I did not make an inquiry 
into what the examination was or what the questions w^ould cover. It 
was a matter left to Commissioner Oberly. 

Q. Have you any idea as to about what subjects were embraced ? — 
A. I have understood that it was 

Mr. Lind. Of your own knowledge ? 

A. Of my own knowledge I can not state. 

Mr. Lind. The witness has already stated that he does not know the 
subject-matter of the examination for he did not examine the manuscript 
paper. 

Mr. Andrew. It has been said here that this manuscript contained 
only questions on arithmetic. Can you state whether or not that is 
true? 

Mr. Oberly. The lady said so. 

Mr, Andrew. Miss Dabney stated to-day in answer to me that there 



64 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

was nothing upon the manuscript which was given to her and which 
was brought to the Commissioner except questions upon arithmetic, 
as she was weali in that branch and wanted the questions on arith- 
metic. 

Mr. LiKD. Can you state whether, according to your recollection, 
that is correct"^ 

A. According to my recollection the portion of the questions which I 
examined with a view of determining whose hand- writing they were in 
were questions in arithmetic. I do not know whether the manuscript 
contained questions upon other subjects of examination or not. 

Mr. LiND. Did you notice whether the questions and answers on the 
manuscript were in the same handwriting? 

A. To the best of my recollection they were. 

Mr. RoosKVELT. Do you remember being called in by the governor 
and myself to state the facts about this case last fall *? 

A. I do. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. Your testimony then was substantially to the same 
effect as the statement of Commissioner Oberly to-day, was it not? 

A. It was. 

Mr. Thompson. You stated to us that Mr. Oberly had investigated 
the matter and decided that nothing more than a reprimand was nec- 
essary ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. And Mr. Campbell has been retained accordingly ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Roosevelt. The only people in the office who knew of this in the 
sense of taking personal part in the investigation were Commissioners 
Oberly, Lyman, Mr. Campbell, and yourself"? 

A. And Mrs. Smith. 

Mr. EOOSEVELT. But Mr. Smith was out of the office when you came 
in? 

A. Those were the only persons connected with the Commission who 
had knowledge of the fact at that time and knew of the occurrence. 

The Chairman. Mr. Ewart wishes to obtain information as to whether 
or not the papers copied by Mr. Campbell were delivered to the Com- 
mission. Is that true? 

Mr. Lyman. The manuscript copy. 

The Chairman. Where is that manuscript ? 

The Witness. I don't know. 

The Chairman. What became of it ? 

Mr. Lyman. The last knowledge I had of it was that it was in the 
possession of Commissioner Oberly. 

Mr. Oberly. Now that manuscript has been traced further than 
that this morning, when you were out. 

Mr. Boatner. The lady who testified this morning said that she 
took the manuscript from Ex-commissioner Oberly and returned it to 
Mr. Flynn. Mr. Flynu testified that that was false. That is as far as it 
has been traced. 

Mr. LiND. Now I ask that this be stricken out. 

Mr. Oberly. I have made several statements concerning that paper. 
I never delivered the manuscript to the Commission because they would 
not acce])t it from me upon conditions. The condition as imposed by 
Miss Dabney was that I would return them to her. 

Mr. LiND. I understand that perfectly well ; and now I ask that these 
questions and answers be stricken out, simply because it encumbers the 
record. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 65 

The Chairman, ^here is no harm in allowing it to remain. Is it 
the pleasure of the committee to go on with the second charge at present '? 

Mr. EwAKT. That is all the evidence on the first charge with regard 
to the abstraction of the questions. 

The Chairman. Let Mr. Morgan take the stand. 

Mr. EwART. Before the charge is read let me briefly call the atten- 
tion of the committee to the section of the statute which we insist was 
violated. 

The said section says as follows : 

Sec. 3. That said Commission is authorized to employ a chief examiner, a part of 
svhose duty it shall be, under its direction, to act with the examining boards, so far 
as practicable, whether at Washington or elsewhere, and to secure accuracy, uni- 
formity, and justice in all their proceedings, which shall be at all times open to him. 
The chief examiner, shall be entitled to receive a salary at the rate of three thou- 
sand dollars a year, and he shall he paid his necessary traveling expenses incurred in 
the discharge of his duty. The Commission shall have a secretaiy , to be appointed by 
the President, who shall receive a salary of one thousand six hundred dollars per 
annum. It may, when necessary, employ a stenographer and a messenger, who shall 
be paid, when employed, the former at the rate of one thousand six hundred dollars 
a year, and the latter at the rate of six hundred dollars a year. 

The Chairman. Now read the charge. 
The charge is as follows : 

It is further charged against the Commission as now constituted, that one Edward 
Daniel Bailey, in violation of the civil-service law, which inhibits the promotion of 
persons in the classified service without examination was promoted by said Commis- 
Bion without any examination to test his fitness, as required bylaw, from a clerkship 
to the position of stenographer, an important position in the said Commission, when 
it was notoriously known at the time that said Bailey was not competent to fill the 
said position of stenographer. 

That this promotion was made when there were several other clerks in the said 
Commission who were expert stenographers, and under the principle governing pro- 
motions undoubtedly entitled to the position. 

Mr. EwART. 1 should liave stated that, in addition to this statute, 
there is a clause in the appropriation act which provides that the Com- 
mission shall have the power to employ a fourth-class clerk, who shall 
\>Q the oi^cial stenographer. 

Mr. EooSEVELT. Who shall be a stenographer. 

Mr. EwART. Yes, sir; that is right; "who shall be a stenographer." 
'A^e would like Mr. Lyman examined iirst on that charge. 

TESTIMONY OF CHAELES- lYMAK. 

Commissioner Lyman, recalled and examined. 
By Mr. EwART : 

Q. Mr. Lyman, who is the ofificial stenographer of the Civil Service 
Commission at that time ? — A. There is no official stenographer in one 
sense, and in another sense there is. Mr. Bailey is the stenographer ap- 
propriated for, as such, by law. 

Q. When was he promoted ? — A. He was appointed in September 
last. 

Q. In September, 1889 ? — A, I think it was ; I have the date of his 
appointment here- 

Q,. Was he required to pass any examination ? — A. At the time of his 
promotion he did not pass any examination. 

Mr. BwART. What are the duties of the official stenographer? — A. 
The duties of the stenographer to the Commission are various in their 
.character. If it is desired by the committee I will make a general state- 
3117 5 



66 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

ment, which will bring out just what the situation is iu the Commission 
with reference to the employment of a stenographer. 

Mr. BOATNER. I suggest that we will get through a great deal more 
quickly if counsel will ask specific and pointed interrogatories. 

Mr. EwART. I can not ask any more pointed question than that. 

Mr. BoATNER. Let the counsel ask specific and pointed questions and 
then, when the examination is finished, if the witness desires to make 
any explanation he may make the statement on re-examination. 

The (3HAIRMA.N. Suppose you answer the questions directly as you 
can and afterwards make such explanations as you desire of any answers 
you may have given to a direct question. 

Mr. EwART. I repeat the question. What are the duties of the offi- 
cial stenographer? — A. Such duties as may be assigned to him by the 
Oommission. 

Q. Taking the testimony in this case? — A. The Commission exercises 
its own judgment as to who shall take the testimony in this case. 

Q. Is this the official stenographer who is now taking this testi- 
mony? — A. He is one of the stenographers of the Commission. 

Q. Is he the official stenographer ?--A. He is a stenographer. He is 
not the fourth-class clerk appropriated for as a stenographer. 

Q. Why do you use this gentleman as a stenographer ? — A. Because 
it suits our convenience. 

Q. In what respect ; why does it suit your convenience ? — A, Because 
he is a stenographer and available. 

Q. Is he an expert ? — A. I think he is. 

Q. Mr. Lyman, you are certainly iu a position to know. — A. I think 
he is ; I supposed you were inquiring about Mr. Holtz. 

The Chairman. You were referring to Mr. Bailey in your question ? 

Mr. EwART. No ; I am referring to Mr. Holtz. Is Mr. Bailey an ex- 
pert stenographer ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was lie at the time of his promotion ? — A. I think he was. 

Q. You think he was ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know the fact that he was ? — ^A. I know that he was a 
stenographer. 

Q. Do you know the fact that at the time of his promotion he was an 
expert stenographer? — A. What do you mean by that? 

Q. A man who can take evidence rapidly, quickly, and accurately. — 
A. He was a stenographer. 

Q. Was he an expert stenographer ? — A. If you will define to me pre- 
cisely what you mean by an expert I will answer the question. 

Q. I will ask you this question : Did you take any steps to satisfy 
yourself that he was an expert stenographer ? — A. I did sir. 

Q. Was he subjected to any examination ? — A. ^ot before his pro- 
motion. 

Q. Did you subject him to any examination to test his fitness and ac- 
curacy as an exx^ert, before his promotion ? — A. He has been repeatedly 
tested as to his fitness. 

Q. Did you take any steps to test him ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it in the form of an examination ? — A. It was in the form of 
dictations. 

Q. Was it in the form of an examination such as is prescribed by the 
Civil Service Commission ? 

Mr. BoATNER. Let him state what kind of an examination it was. 

Mr. EwARTS. Did you satisfy yourself in conducting his examination 
that he was expert enough to take down evidence rapidly and ac- 
curately ? — A. I satisfied myself that he was such a stenographer as 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 67 

might be put in that place in conformity with the requirements of the 
statute. 

Q. Was Mr. Holtz a clerk in that Bureau at that time? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you regard him as good a stenographer as Mr. Bailey "? — A. I 
think he is. 

Q. Do you regard Mr. Bailey as a better stenographer than Mr. 
Holtz ?— A. I do not. 

Q. How then do you explain his promotion ? — A. Because he was 
Mr. Holtz's senior. 

Q. Then you promoted him because he was an older man? — A. l^ot 
because he was an older man. 

Q. You did not make the promotion then on merit? — A. I did. 

Q. I just understood you to say you made the promotion on account 
of his seniority in the service. — A. That is a part ot" it, sir. 

Q. I will ask this question : I will ask you whether at the time you 
made that promotion you did not know that Mr. Holtz was a better 
stenographer in every respect than Mr. Bailey, the gentleman whom you 
did promote ? — A. 1 don't know that I specially compared the two men 
in that respect. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Inform me, if you please, who Mr. Bailey is and who Mr. Holtz is — 
I mean officially 1 — A. Mr. Bailey is a fourth-class clerk with the desig- 
nation of stenographer. 

Q. Was he appointed under this appropriation act? — A. Yes, sir; he 
was promoted. 

Q. Who is Mr. Holtz ? — A. Mr. Holtz is a third-class clerk employed 
in the office of the Commissioner, at this moment taking notes at the 
table. 

Q. Is he acting as as a stenographer in the Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you what you term your official stenographer ? — A. We do 
not term any one the official stenographer. 

Q. What are the duties of Mr. Bailey as stenographer? — A. Mr. 
Bailey, as stenographer, takes dictation from the Chief Examiner and 
from the Commissioners. 

Q. What are the duties of Mr. Holtz ?— A. Mr. Holtz performs a 
variety of duties. 

Q. I mean as stenographer ? — A. Mr. Holtz frequently takes dicta- 
tion for letters and he does other stenographic work in the Commission 
as the Commission requires. 

Q. Both of these gentlemen have been appointed to the position of 
stenographer? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Either of them ?— A. Mr. Bailey has. 

Q. Mr. Holtz then is simj)ly drawing a salary as a third-class clerk? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Does Mr. Bailey draw the salary of stenographer ? — A. He draws 
the salary as a fourth-class clerk. 

Q. He was a fourth-class clerk before? — A. IsTo, sir; he was a third- 
class clerk at the time of his last promotion. 

Q. Then he gets no additional salary by reason of being S: stenogra- 
Ijher ? — IsTo, sir. 

Q. What I want to get at is the matter which Mr. Ewart was examin- 
ing you about as to the appointment of this man Bailey as a stenogra- 
pher and concerning your examination of him? — A. I think I can give 
you the information you want and economize the time of the comuiittee 
if you will allow me to make a statement. 



68 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. I wish you would. — A. The civil service law provided that the Com- 
mission might employ a stenographer when needed. Mr. Doyle, the 
present secretary oi' the Commission, wasemj^loyed as that stenographer 
at that time and subsequently, in the appropriation act from year to 
year, a clerk is appropriated for, "who shall be a stenographer. " One 
is now so appropriated for at a salary of $1,800 per annum, the appro- 
priation being for one clerk of class 4, who shall be a stenographer. 
Long, long ago the business of the Commission demanded more than 
one stenographer, and the gentleman who has been employed in the 
position of stenographer according to the statute in this particular 
case, has never been, in the history of the Commission, exclusively em- 
ployed in that work but has been assigned to various other duties from 
time to time. As business has increased it has become necessary to 
.have other stenographers, and at the present moment, in addition to 
Mr. Bailey, there are employed Mr. Holtz, who is a stenographer and is 
used as such ; Mr. Swank, who is a stenographer and is used as such ; 
Mr. Culver, who is a stenographer and is used as such, and Mr. Doyle 
is occa'Sionally used as a stenographer when his other duties will per- 
mit. I am not certain but what Mr. Leadley is a stenographer also. 
There are at least live stenographers in the employ of the Commission, 
all of whom are used to do such work as occasion may require. No 
one of them is regarded or treated by the Commission as the official 
stenographer, that is, as the man to do that kind of work, for no one 
man can do the whole of that work. 

Q. Stenography is a branch of learning that is made the subject of 
a special examination under your rules ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you understand that this clerk, who is to be a stenographer, au- 
thorized to be appointed by the appropriation act, should be examined as 
to his qualiucations before appointment ? — A. If a man were appointed 
directly from the outside to this place, unquestionably the law and the 
rules of the Commission would require that the person should be cer- 
tified from the register of the Commission from the persons who have 
been examined as stenographers. 

Q. If he is already in the employ of the Commission, then, your idea 
is that he would require no examination ? — A. It is a question of promo- 
tion, and his fitness for the position is a matter to be tested by a written 
examination or the knowledge of the Commission on his qualifications 
for the place. 

Q. You apijointed this man, then, not upon an examination, but upon 
personal knowledge? — A. By promotion, because of our knowledge of 
his qualifications for that place. 

Q. Did you have i)ersonal knowledge touching his qualifications as a 
stenographer prior to his promotion *? — A. I did, sir. 

Q. flow had you obtained that knowledge ? — A. Because I had seen 
him write stenography. 

Q. You said in answer to Mr. Bwart that you had examined him in 
some way by dictation. — A. I had tested him. 

Q. You tested him by dictation ? — A. Every stenographer is tested 
by dictation. 

Q. Did you do that before or after the promotion "? — A. He was tested 
before in practical work. 

Q. By you 1 — A. By me. 

Q. In that way you satisfied yourself before the i)romotion of his 
qualifications 1? — A. Before his promotion I satisfied myself thoroughly 
that he was a stenographer. 

Q. Could he have passed the examination in stenography at the date 
of his promotion *?— A. I tliink he could. 



CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 69 

Q. And obtained the grade tbat would have entitled him to go on 
the eligible list *? — A. I think he could. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. There is one additional question which 1 desire to ask. I under- 
stood you to say that where a clerk was promoted, who was already in 
the employ of the Commission, that then a special examination in stenog- 
raphy was not required ? — A. The rules do not require a special ex- 
amination where the Commissioners have kno wled ge of the qualifications. 

Q. Is that the practice in the other Departments "? — A. I think it is. 

Q. In other words could the Commissioner of Pensions promote a 
clerk of the third class, as you did in this instance, to a higher class — 
requiring among other qualifications that tbe employe should under- 
stand stenography — could that promotion be made by the Commissioner 
of Pensions without the person receiving the promotion having been 
first examined f — A. If you substitute for " the Commissioner of Pen- 
sions " the "Secretary of the Interior " I will say yes. 

Q. Making that substitution you would say yes 1 — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. You have just stated, Mr. Lyman, that the appointing officer in 
any department might promote a clerk from one grade to another with- 
out an examination or without any additional examination to show his 
fitness for the place to which he is promoted. — A. I mean to say tbat 
the Commission has jjrescribed regulations which apply to tbe War 
Department, under which promotions take j)lace ; but tbe Commission 
does not attempt and the rules do not attempt to regulate promotions 
in the other Departments, excej)t so far as to regulate the promotion of 
those who have been appointed^ from the copyist register to the thou- 
sand-dollar grade. 

Q. What rule, if any, have you for appointment in the clerical force 
of the Civil Service Commission? — A. The rules which apply to tbe 
other Departments apply to the Civil Service Commission. 

Q. I do not mean in a general way. I mean have you any special 
rules which apply to the appointment of clerks °! — A. No special rules. 
We are bound by the same rules which apply to the other Departments. 

Q. What I want to get at is this : Suppose there is a vacancy, do 
you call in a new man from the outside, or do you fill tbat vacancy by 
promotion, and by taking in a new man at the bottom ? — A. The gen- 
eral practice of the Commission is to fill vacancies in tbe higher grades 
by promotion, and to make the original appointments at the bottom. 

Q. Is there any rule which regulates the appointments in the office, 
or is tbat merely at the option of the Commission ? — A. It is the matter 
wholly within the discretion of the Commission except in so far as it is 
controlled by the departmental rule. 

Q. I want to get at this : Suppose it becomes necessary, or you have 
an opportunity, to promote one of your clerks from an inferior to a su- 
perior position, and you have two or more men in the service and in the 
same grade who are competent to fulfill the duties of the position to 
which the promotion is to be made, and one has been in the service 
longer than tbe other, or they have been in the service different lengths 
of time, is there any rule which would require you to select one which 
has been longer in the service? — A. There is no rule; but other things 
being equal, tbe Commission would undoubtedly give the preference to 
the man who was the senior in the length of service. It is a matter of 
judgment, however. 



70 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q„ You said that the Commission, all things beiug equal, gave the 
preference to the employe who has been longest in the service"? — A. 
That would be my personal opiniou. 

Q. Is there any regulation to that effect? — A. I may say that has 
been the general i)ractice of the Commission. It has varied in indi- 
vidual instances ; but it is the general practice of the Commission. 

The Chairman. In making this appointment of Mr. Bailey, in point 
of fact was he entitled to it by being the longest in the service "? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Mr. vStone. Would he be qualified to come here and take this testi- 
mony, in your opinion ? — A. Well, gentlemen, I think he could come 
here and take this testimony. But I wish to impress upon the com- 
mittee one fact, that the Commission employs five stenographers and 
that the gentleman who is designated by his appointment as stenogra- 
pher is not now and never has been exclusively employed as stenog- 
raj)her ; that the Commission has been obliged, I may say, by the 
stress of its work to utilize in the best possible manner the employes 
to accomplish the work, and in doing that sometimes what you would 
call an official stenographer would be doing stenographic work and 
sometimes he would not. 

Mr. EwART. Which one draws the $1,800 salary I— A. Mr. Bailey. 

Mr. LiND. I would like to ask right here one question, which is this: 
Does your stenographic work consist principally of taking letter dic- 
tations or have you much taking of evidence to do 1 — A. The greater 
part of it consists in taking letter dictation and dictation for the min- 
utes and of ruling and of decisions, and ail that sort of ordinary current 
office work, 

Mr. LiND. Office work? — A. Yes, sir ; occasionally when the Commis- 
sion makes investigations it takes one of the stenographers, or they 
employ another stenographer who is not connected with the Commission 
at all, as has been done in several instances. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. When was Mr. Bailey originally appointed to a position in the Com- 
mission ? — A. I can give you the exact date by consulting a memoran- 
dum I have. 

Q. How long was it from the time he was promoted ? — A. I think it 
was 1886 when he was appointed. 

Q. When was he promoted? — A. He was jiromoted two or three 
months ago. 

Q. Was he a stenographer of any kind when he entered the Commis- 
sion ? — A. I have no doubt he was a stenographer when he entered the 
Comnnssion. 

Q. In making an examination of a stenographer would you ask how 
long he had been a stenographer ? — A. Ko, sir. 

Q. The appropriation bill provides for a fourth -class clerk, " who 
shall be a stenographer?" — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has that fourth-class clerk ever been recognized as the official 
stenographer ? You say that he has not been recognized as the official 
stenographer? — A. He has never been exclusively so, nor exclusively 
used for that jiurpose. 

By Mr. Ewart : 
Q. I see in your fourth report here the name of William E. Morgan, 
of Pennsylvania, given as stenographer. Was he regarded as the offi- 
cial stenographer and the only one?-^A. He was appropriated for as 
steuograplier. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 71 

Q. AkS the official stenograpbor ? — A, You may use that word, Ibut I 

do DOt. 

Q. As a fourth-class clerk '? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. His uameis the only stenographer's name which appears here? — 
A. His is the only name which appears there, but at that time there 
were others in the employ of the Commission. 

Q. After the publication of this report and before you issued your 
fifth report, you decided to strike this official from the list 1 — A. That 
is simply a matter of publication of names. 

Mr. LiND. Is Morgan still there ? — A, No, sir. 

Mr. Stone. Is that the place Bailey has nowf 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Mr. Lyman, at the time this report was issued Mr. Morgan was 
occupying the place which Mr. Bailey has now; is not that so"? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. When the report was issued his name was the one that was em- 
braced in the list of the officers of the Commission 1 — A. After the filth 
report was issued Mr. Morgan's name was left out. 

Q. You give it as your opinion that, if you had put Mr. Bailey to a 
test examination, he would have passed 1 — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Bo you give it as your opinion that he would have passed at a 
higher grade than Mr. Holtz ? — A. I am not making com]3arisons, as 
that can be determined only by examination. 

Q. You can give an opinion with regard to Mr. Holtz as well as with 
regard to Mr. Bailey. I am only asking for your opinion. — A. Mr. 
Holtz is a good stenographer. 

Q. You will not say then that, in your opinion, he would pass any 
higher grade than Mr. Bailey would have i^assed at the time he was 
promoted ? — A. I think it quite likely that at that time and very prob- 
ably now Mr. Holtz is a more rapid stenographer than Mr. Bailey. 

Q. When the Commission has any very imijortaut and rapid work 
which they want done, like taking the testimony in any investigation 
of a post-office case, does Bailey do that work ? — A. He has not been 
doing that work because he has been charged with another kind of 
work which takes his whole time. 

Q. If you had to choose stenographers there at this time and had to 
choose between Holtz and Bailey to take this testimony, I would like 
to ask which one of the two you would select to take it? — A. That is a 
matter which would be governed by the convenience of the office. 

The Chairman. The witness has said that Mr. Bailey does other 
work which occupies his time. 

Mr. Hatton. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions "? 

Mr. LiND. I would ask, under these specifications, if you have any 
testimony to offer which differs from this"? 

Mr. Hatton. The testimony we have to offer is to the effect that this 
man v/as promoted without an examination, and to show that at the 
time of his promotion, and by men qualified to judge better th;m Mr. 
Lyman, because they are stenographers themselves, he was utterly in- 
competent as a stenographer and could not possibly have passed an 
examination. That is the opinion of stenographers, experts in the busi- 
ness. 



72 CIVIL , SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



TESTIMOI^Y OF WILLIAM E. MOEGAH. 

William E. Morgan sworn and examined : 
By Mr. Bwaet : 

Q. Please state your place of residence and your occupation ? — A. I am 
now living at No. 906 Fourteenth street, Wasbiugton, D. C, I occupy 
a position in the Bureau of the Mint at the Treasury Department, as 
stenographer to the Director of the Mint. 

Q. Were you ever connected with the Civil Service Commission ? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In what capacity? — A. As stenographer. I hold here my com- 
mission as such dated Februa,ry 18. 

Q. You were not under the Commission at that time"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q, How long have you been employed here as a stenographer, in 
Washington and other cities ? — A. Ever since I have been in Wash- 
ington, and that was in the latter part of ] 885. I was employed before 
that in Philadelphia for three or four years, 

Q. I presume you would consider yourself an expert ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know Bailey at the time he was appointed as stenog- 
rapher ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is your opinion, as an expert, of Mr, Bailey as a stenog- 
rapher"? — A. Well, in the sense that the stenographers are named in 
the Civil Service Commission, under the appropriation act, which 
means that he shall be competent to take testimony in any investigation 
the Commission is empowered to make, I do not think that he was com- 
petent to perform that work. In fact I never thought of calling him a 
stenographer any more than a man who could play a scale on the violin 
could call himself a violinist. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Holtz f — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he in the service of the Commission at the time you were 
employed there ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What do you know of his knowledge of stenography? — A. I 
think he is a man of considerable ability in his line. 

Q. What comparison would you make of Mr. Holtz and Mr. BaHey ? — 
A. Mr. Holtz is infinitely superior. They can not be compared at all. 

Q. There is no comparison to be made? — A. iN'o, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Morgan, when did you leave the Civil Service 
Commission ? — A. I went to the Treasury Department on September 
12, 1889. 

By Mr. Andrew : 

Q. Last September ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long were you a stenographer to the Commission ; how many 
years "? — A. From September, 1886, to September, 1889 ; about three 
years. 

Q. Why were you transferred to the Treasury Department ? — A. I 
left the Civil Service Commission because I felt that I was not treated 
properly by the Commission. My work was taken away from me and I 
was assigned to cori*espoudeuce up stairs at a type-writer, and persons 
who were not designated as stenographers in the Commission were as- 
signed to stenographic work in making investigations. I was put in 
such a position that I felt that I was doing work that was not commen- 
surate with my salary, and that it would be a question of but a very 
short time before I would be asked to leave. I forestalled that by get- 
ting transferred. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 73 

Q, You resigned "? — A. I resigned. 
By Mr. Lyman : 

Q. Mr. Morgan, when were you appointed as stenographer to the 
Commission f — A. I think it was on December 18, 1886. 

Q. Who signed that commission 1 — A. John H. Oberly, Commissioner 
in charge. 

Q. What was your occupation at the time you were i)romoted ? — A. 
I was the stenographer in the Bureau of the Mint. 

Q. Was this place appropriated for a stenographer in the Commission 
at that time*? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you were employed at Washington did you take an exam- 
ination'? — A. No, sir; at the time I was appointed all stenographers in 
the classified service were exempt from examination. 

Q. How did Mr. Oberly, when he signed your appointment, know that 
you were a stenographer ? — A. Because I was examined for that posi- 
tion in the Bureau of the Mint, and he questioned me as to my ability 
as a stenographer ; whether I was competent to take investigations. 

Q. Did he test you in any way ? — A. He did not. 

Q. So that when you were appointed stenographer to the Commission 
you were not examined ? — A. I was not examined. I took an examina- 
tion when I was transferred this last time. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. That was after you left the Commission "^^A. Yes, 
sir; I ])assed the examination when I was transferred. 

By Mr. Lyman : 

Q. While you were stenographer to the Commission, and so desig- 
nated, did you do stenographic work steadily? — A. No, sir; in con- 
nection with my duties there I was certification clerk. 

Q. Did that require stenography"? — A. No, sir. 

Q. That was your main work, was it not? — A. Yes, when I was not 
engaged in stenographic work. 

Q. What proportion of your time while you were employed as ste 
nograiiher was devoted to stenography? — A. I was called in right 
along, for a long while, as stenographer to the Commission, to take the 
minutes. 

Q. That only took from a quarter of an hour to a half of an hour ? — 
A. Some days it took from 2 o'clock till 5. 

Q. That was only occasionally. Generally it was for a short time? — 
A. Not always; always more than ten minutes. 

Q. Sometimes the Commission had long discussions and you did not 
have very much to do while waiting. During the last year and a half 
or two years of your connection with the Commission did you do very 
much stenographic work?— A. Not towards the latter part, because other 
stenographers were assigned to do my work. 

Q. What do you mean by the latter part? — A. When you were sole 
Commissioner. 

Q. Did you not do as much stenographic work then as you had done 
before that? — A. No, sir. 

Q. How much stenographic work had you done six months before 
that or a year before that? — A. I could not say. A year before that I 
took the Philadelphia investigation. 

Q. Is that the only investigation that you took? — A, That's the only 
one I took. 

Q. How many investigations did the Commission make during the 
time you were stenographer? — A. They made several. You made 
several in New York. 



74 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. 1 am speaking now of the old Commission and not of the time 
when this Commission was formed. — A. I do not think there was any 
other investigation excepting the one in the New York custom-house 
by Mr. Oberly. I did that while I was there. 

Q. Was there an investigation made in Chicago"? — A. Yes; there was 
an investigation made in Chicago, and I was assigned to go there; but 
Mr. Edgerton objected on the score of economy and said that he did 
not think a stenographer was necessary. When the Commission arrived 
there they found it was necessary to have a stenographer and I supi)ose 
they employed one out there. 

Q. You were regularly employed as a stenographer. That was not 
your main business? — A. I went to the Commission with the intention 
of being a stenographer and I was informed that that was my position 
there. 

Q. How long was it after you were appointed stenographer before 
the i)romotion of Bailey took place? — A. Mr. Bailey swore in before I 
resigned. I came back and found that he had taken the oath of office. 
I went upstairs and said that I thought he was a little premature, that 
I had not resigned and would not until the next day. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. What was the date of that? — A. That was on the 30th of August, 
I think. 

Q. Of what year ? — A. Last year. 

Q. When were you appointed ? — A. September 18, 1886. 

Q. Then your resignation was about three years afterwards "2 -A. 
YeSj sir. 

By Mr. Roosevelt : 

Q. Yv^ere you appointed by Mr. Oberly when he was the sole Commis- 
sioner ? — A. Yes, sir ; but he had telegraphed to Mr. Edgerton for his 
concurrence and received that. 

Q. But you were appointed by Mr. Oberly when he was the sole act- 
ing Commissioner, having received the concurrence by telegraph of the 
other members ? — A. So I understood ; yes, sir. 

Q. He did not test you by examination when you were appointed ? — 
A. Ko ; lie did not. 

Q. Had you made your entry into the service by examination f — A. 
As I told Mr. Lyman, examinations were not required by the Civil Serv- 
ice Commission at that time for stenographers, although I was exam- 
ined by the Director of the Mint as to my competency to take that posi- 
tion as stenographer. 

Q. But you have not had any civil service examination ?— A. No, sir. 

Q. What was your salary just before you were promoted by Mr. 
Oberly ? — A. I was a $1,400 clerk, appropriated for as stenographer. 

Q. You were then promoted from a $1,400 position to an $1,800 
position ? — A. I was not promoted. I was transferred. 

Q. You were transferred from a $1,400 position to an $1,800 position 
without examination ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. By Acting Commissioner Oberly, with the concurrence of his col- 
lengue or colleagues ? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr, Thompson : 

Q. Do you remember a conversation you had with me about two 
months ago ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember of saying in that conversation that you had a 
grievance against any niember of the Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 75 

Q. What did you 8ay to me'? — A. I naid 1 bad a grievance against 
the Oommission, iuasmuch as they had not treated me ])roperly. Mr. 
Lyman and Mr. Webster were both very courteous to me personally. 

Q. Did you state that you had any grievance against Mr. Roosevelt 
and myself? — A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not say that "? — Yes, sir ; I said that I had not. 

Q. Did you say that you did not propose to make yourself iirominent 
in this matter, but if called upon you intended to testify ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In that conversation did you tell me Bailey was, in your opinion, 
not a stenogTai)her 1 — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that he was improperly appointed "? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you tell me that Holtz ought to have had that place? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it your opinion now that Bailey is not a stenographer. You 
said just now that you were an expert"? — A. Yes, sir; 1 think he can 
act as an amanuensis. 

Q. Do you think that he could pass the examinations that are re- 
quired for stenographers in the Civil Service Commission'? — A. I don't 
think he could. 

Q. Did you ever tell Holtz that you thought he was entitled to this 
promotion and ought to have if? — A. I don't recollect. I may have 
told him that. 

Q. I would be glad if you would remember. — A. I could not say; 
there was a great deal of discussion, and he spoke in strong terms 
against the promotion of Mr. Bailey to the position of stenographer. 

Q. You don't remember whether you ever told Holtz that he was en- 
titled to it and ought to have if? — A. No, I don't; but I think he was 
entitled to it. I do not recollect of saying it to you; but I would just 
as soon say it now. 

Q. What I want to bring out is whether you did not say so to 
Holtz?— A. If Mr. Holtz will testify that I did, I will not deny if 

Q. It is important to know v/hether Mr. Morgan did not say so to Mr. 
Holtz. — A. I have no recollection on that subject. 

Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Bailey that you thought he was entitled to 
this place and ought to have it '? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Johnson that you thought Bailey was en- 
titled to it and ought to have it '? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Nothing like that "? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Wallace '? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever tell him you thought Bailey ought to have this place'? — 
A. No, sir. 

Q. I propose to contradict you on this point and I want to give you 
fair notice. I ask you again if you did not, in one of the rooms 
in the second story of the Commission, call Bailey to one side and 
say to him, I am going to resign and am going to the Treasury, I am 
going to get out of the way, and 1 hope you will get this place"?— A. I 
recollect of speaking to him. 

Q. One day in going to lunch and returning from lunch in company 
with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Wallace did you not tell them that Bailey 
was entitled to this position and ought to have it "? — A. I have no recol- 
lection. 

Q. I would like to have you answer the question directly yes or no 1 — 
A. How can I answer it yes or no when I have no recollection about it '? 

The Chairman. Might you have said so'?— A. I might have said so; 
hut I do not think I did and I have no recollection on the subject. 



76 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. I understood you just now to say that you did not say so to John- 
son ? — A. I would not be positive. 

Q. Do you positively say that you did not say so to Bailey ? — A. I 
am pretty positive on that point. Mr. Bailey, being the oldest clerk 
there, was entitled to the next promotion ; but not to the position of 
stenographer, unless he was qualified for it. 

Q. That was only the $1,800 place I— A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. EoosevblT : 

Q. Do I understand you to say that Mr. Holtz had told you that 
Bailey was not entitled to the promotion? — A. Yes, sir 5 there was a 
conversation on that promotion and we both concurred in that idea. 

Q. Your statement was that Mr. Holtz told you that Bailey was not 
entitled to the promotion *? — A. Yes, sir; he felt aggrieved himself , and 
thought that he was entitled to it and I thought so too. 

Q. You say that was what Holtz told you ? — A. That is the sum and 
substance of it 5 yes, sir. 

By Mr. LiND : 

Q. Mr. Morgan, were you acquainted with the relative capacity of 
these two men, Bailey and Holtz, as clerks? — A. As clerks ? 

Q. Yes ; for ordinary office- work, — A. Well, I thought they were on 
an equality in th^t respect as ordinary clerks, outside of their steno- 
graphic qualifications. 

Q. I asked you whether you were acquainted with them ? — A. Yes, 
sir ; I have been with both of them. I have seen them both at clerical 
work in the office. 

Q. Did you work in the same room ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And handle papers alongside of them? — A. Yes, sir; with Mr. 
Holtz, but not with Mr. Bailey. The only information I had of Mr. 
Bailey was that I was detailed upstairs, and they assigned me to act 
as stenographer for him to take down his dictations and correspond- 
ence. 1 objected to that. 

Q. I do not care about that ; you were more familiar then with the 
capacity of Mr. Holtz than you were with the proficiency of Mr, Bailey 
for ordinary clerical work? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And your general information is that they were about the same? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. As a matter of fact much the larger portion of your time and the 
time of any one who acts as a stenographer or is known as a stenog- 
rapher in the Civil Service Commission is occupied in performing other 
duties ?— A. A great portion of the time. 

Q. The greater portion ? — A. Yes, sir; the major portion of it. 

By Mr. Stone : 
Q. Is this paper which I hold in my hand the original commission 
given to you by Mr. Oberly? — A. Yes, sir; I think that is the one. 
Q. Have you a copy of this? — A. No, sir; that is the original. 
Mr. Stone. I will read this and ask the stenographer to take it down. 

United States Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, September 18, 1886. 
William E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, is hereby appointed stenographer of tbe Civil 
Soivice Commission, i*s provided for by section 3 of an act to regulate and improve 
tlic civil service of tbe United States; this appointment to take etiect, as soon as he 
sball lile the oath of office, for the probationary period of six mouths. 

John H. Oberly, 
Commissioner in charge. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 77 

Mr. BoATNER. I understood you to say awhile ago, in answer to a 
question about the comi^etency of Mr. Bailey, that you considered him 
competent as an amanuensis. — A. Yes, sir; I think I saw him take dic- 
tation from Major Webster. That is the only stenographic work I ever 
saw him do. 

By Mr. Lyman: 

Q. Just in that line, what opportunity had you for knowing whether 
Mr. Bailey was or was not a stenographer ? — A. During my sojourn up- 
stairs I was in communication with Mr. Bailey every day and 1 saw 
him do stenographic work on several occasions and I sat down and saw 
Major Webster dictating to him. I took the dictation myself to see 
whether Mr. Bailey was a stenographer or not. He took a good many 
notes and filled out his letters in his own language, which Major Web- 
ster approved ; but I do not think he ever took it down verbatim. 

Q. That is your only means of knowing? — A. That is my only means 
of knowing ; yes, sir. I never saw him do any stenographic work and 
never beard of him doing any. 

Mr. Oberly. Mr. Eoosevelt asked the question evidently with the 
intention of showing that Mr. Morgan was transferred from the Treas- 
ury Department by transfer without examination. I want to bring out 
that point. 

Mr. LiND. That is immaterial on this specification. 

Mr. Oberly. No examination for transfer was then necessary or could 
be made. 



Thursday, February 27, 1890. 
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES LYMAH— Recalled. 

Mr. Charles Lyman, recalled. 

Mr. EwART. I want to recall Mr. Lyman in order to examine him in 
reference to the appointment of Mr. Bailey. 

Mr. Lyman. I was not on the stand yesterday when the testimony 
closed. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. I believe I understood you to say yesterday that Mr. Bailey was 
appointed without any examination ? — A. I said that Mr. Bailey was 
appointed without the usual examination. 

Q. Then that appointment was made by yourself under Eule 6, 
which prescribes that no promotion shall be made in any Department 
without a test of fitness ? — A. The appointment was made by the Com- 
mission. 

Q. Under Eule 6 ?— A. Under Eule 9. 

Q. Eule 6 prescribes that promotions may be made upon any test of 
fitness t — A. In the last report it is Eule 9. 

Q. That being the case, how do you reconcile that action in the case 
of Mr. Bailey with the language used in the report of July, 1887, where 
you say the test of fitness is required? Please explain that apparent 
variation in your appointment of Mr. Bailey, and theJanguage used as 
a Commissioner in making that report '? — A. I will say that the appoint- 
ment of Mr. Bailey was made in conformity with the general practice 
of the Commission, both before and after that time. 



78 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. That is not an answer to the question. I am asking yon to ex- 
plain the variance between the language used in making that report 
and the action in the appointment of Mr. Bailey without requiring him 
to pass the examination. — A. If I may be allowed to answer the ques- 
tion in my own w\ay, I will say that I am stating the lact that the pro- 
motion of Mr. Bailey was made in conformity with the practice both 
before and after his promotion — a practice pursued in the office of the 
Civil Service Commission, and a x^ractice which was in effect at the 
time this report was written, and a practice which has continued since 
that time, not only in the office of the Commission, but in the Depart- 
ments. My understanding of this language is that every promotion 
must be made in conformity with the law under the provisions of the 
rule referred to. My understandiug of what the Commission means to 
say here is that every promotion must be made in accordance with the 
requirements of the statute under the provisions of the rule referred to, 
or any rule which is made to apply to the subject of promotions ; and 
that the law and the rule require that some test should be made. The 
rule itself says (and the rule must be construed to be in harmony with 
the law) that it may be upon a test of fitness determined by the pro- 
moting officer. That test of fitness, according to this language, should 
be an "examination. That examination may be a written examination 
made at the time, or it may be an observation of the fitness of the can- 
didate for promotion made from day to day, from week to week, and 
from month to month, under the direct supervision of the promoting 
officer. Either of these methods would be in harmony with the law, 
the rule, and the practice. 

Q. Then what you had reference to when you said in your report, the 
test of fitness required by the rule must be made in accordance with 
what is quoted there, that the test of fitness must be an examination, 
had reference to such examination as the promoting officer might choose 
to make ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many stenographers were in the office at the time this pro- 
motion .was made ? — A. Five, at least. 

Q. Was your personal observation of these stenographers such as to 
satisfy you that Mr. Bailey was a superior officer to any of them ? — A. 
I have not taken that position, 

Q. Was your i)ersonal observation of these five stenographers such 
as to convince you that Mr. Holtz was a better stenographer than Mr. 
Bailey "? — A. I think I said so yesterday. Let me state, once for all, 
that under this language of the rule which vests the power and respon- 
sibility with the promoting officer to make promotions upon any test of 
fitness determined upon by him, the Civil Service Commission in the 
matter of Mr. Bailey's appointment made such an examination as to 
satisfy it that his promotion would be in conformity with law, and with 
the best interests of the service. 

Q. That is not an answer to my question. — A. That is a statement of 
the fact, and the Civil Service Commission rests its responsibility, so 
far as 1 am concerned, upon that statement. 

Q. There were five stenographers in the office. I ask you if your per- 
sonal observation was such as to satisfy you that when Mr. Bailey was 
appointed to this position, with a salary of $1,800, he was a superior 
stenographer, or more expert than Mr. Holtz, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Will- 
iams, or Mr. Culver i? 

The Chairman. I think Mr. Lyman answered that fully yesterday. 

Mr. BoATNEE. He said there were other duties than stenographic 
duties. That Mr. Bailey was appointed, and while this gentleman ve- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 79 

ferred to (Mr. Holtz) was probably a more rapid stenograph er, lie re- 
garded the young man Mr. Bailey as competent and worthy to fill this 
place. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. In other words, a more competent one. I ask him if his personal 
observation was s«ich as satisfied him that Mr. Bailey was a more ex- 
pert stenographer than Mr. Holtz, Mr. Williams, Mr. Morgon, or Mr. 
Culver. He can say yes or no. — A. I have answered that several 
times, but I have no objection to answering it again.- I think that Mr. 
Holtz was a more rapid stenographer than Mr. Bailey was at that time. 
I have no doubt on that subject. 

I think it is due to myself and to the Commission — I have stated it 
it in J) art before — but yesterday I said that the Commission had five 
stenographers. J said also that long ago the work of the Commission 
became such that more than one stenographer was needed. It fre- 
quently happens that three or four are in requisition at the same time. 
One man can not possibly do all the work required in the commission. 
The stenographer who was appropriated for as such has never been em- 
ployed exclusively as a stenographer, but has been assigned to other 
duties such as the requirements of theofdce demanded, The work has 
increased rapidly, and is of such a great variety that it has been im- 
possible to make an accurate division of the duties — to assign one man 
to this particular line of work, and keej) him at it. A man may be do- 
ing one work to day, and another to-morrow, He may be doing steno- 
graphic work one day, and in entirely different kind of work another 
day. The pressure upon the Commission has been such that this great 
variety of work has been demanded of the employ <§s, and it has been a 
question of judgment with the Commission, in view of the necessities of 
the public work, whether this man or that or the other man should do 
this, that, or the other kiftd of work. Mr. Bailey has been several 
years in the Commission. He has proved himself to be an exceedingly 
valuable clerk. He has been trusted with very responsible work in the 
office of the Commission. He has performed that work to the entire 
satisfaction of the Commission. He was, at the time this promotion 
was made, the senior clerk of the office, and had been for a long time. 
In view of all the circumstances, in view of his position in the office, 
in view of the work he had performed, in view of the fact that he was 
a stenographer, and that his appointment would satisfy the require- 
ments of the law, and in view of every consideration of right and jus- 
tice, and the interest of the public service, he was fairly and justly, in 
my judgment, entitled to this promotion. His promotion did not vio- 
late any law, rule, or precedent. It did not in any way do violence to 
the public service or the public interest. A failure to have promoted 
him at that time would have been, in my judgment, not only a great 
outrage upon him, but a detriment to the public service. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. The appropriation act says that the clerk shall be a stenogra- 
pher? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has the Commission at any time made any degree of rank as be- 
tween the various stenographers'? — A. No, sir. 

Q. When Mr. Doyle was a stenographer, did his office appear as such 
in the report"? — A. I think that might have been ihe case. 

Q. When Mr. Morgan was a stenographer, did his name apj^ear 1 — 
A. I think so. 



80 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. I think it has always been inserted, until the last report. — A. No 
importance was attached to that. 

Q. Mr. Morgan was the stenographer at the time of the last report, 
was he not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was a short time before Mr. Bailey had been appointed ?— 
A. It was some time before. 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. Was Mr. Bailey promoted by law, or by the Commission? — A. 
By the Commission. 

Q. Did he undergo a civil service examination at any time before 
he was appointed? — A. He took the clerks' examination. He was ap- 
pointed in the War Department, and was subsequently transferred to 
our Commission. 

Q. I understand that he did not undergo any other examination at 
the time of, or after, his promotion, and the only test of fitness applied 
was the observation of the Commission as to his fitness and qualifica- 
tions for the position ? — A. I have not said that. I said that at the 
time of his promotion no written examination was required of him. 

Q. I understood you to say just now, in answer to the question of 
Mr. Ewart, that you considered that the law was complied with ? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. I asked you, in view of the fact, whether or not Mr. Bailey had a 
written examination with reference to this promotion, either before or 
after the promotion, and you said he did not. — A. I did not say that. 
My testimony has been to the effect that at the time he did not have 
such a written examination. He did have it after. 

Q. How long after 1 — A. Some little time after this question came up. 

Q. What was the result of that examination ? — A. He passed the 
examination. 

Q. Asa stenographer ? — A, Yes, sir. 

Q. Before his promotion 1 — A. ]No, sir. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. I understood you to say yesterday that Mr. Morgan was receiving, 
while in the employ of the Commission, a salary of $1,800, and that he 
was appointed under the iiuthority of the appropriation act. Mr. 
Oberly said that he was appointed official stenographer under author- 
ity of the third section of this act of January 16, 1883, known as the 
civil service act? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I find on reference to that third section that the Commission has 
authority to employ a stenographer who shall be paid, when employed, 
at the rate of $1,600 a year. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you say that he was appointed under authority of that act? — A. 
I have never seen the letter of his appointment. I was not in Wash- 
ington at the time it was made, and 1 am in no way responsible for it. 

Q. I was simply asking in order to understand whether that was a 
mistake, or how it was. — A. I should say that it was a mistake. 

Q. Did the appropriation act authorize the appointment of an addi- 
tional stenographer ? — A. No, sir -, I think not. 

Q. There was no appropriation then for any appointment under this 
act? — A. Eot under the terms of that act. 

Q. Was there any appropriation for more than one stenographer for 
your Commission ? — A. No, sir. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 81 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Do you remember, ou the examination of Mr. Bailey as a stenog- 
rapher, at what grade he passed 1 — A. I think at the grade of 72 and a 
fraction. 

Q. Do you remember whether it was higher or lower than the grade 
of the other gentlemen examined as stenograj)hers ? — A. 1 do not re- 
member the different grades. It was a higher grade than the grade 
attained by Mr. Holtz on. his examination. It was a lower grade than 
was attained by some others. 

Mr. BwAET. As I understand it, the heads of bureaus in other De- 
partments can make promotions from their personal obser\7^ation '? 

The Witness. They are doing it every day. 

Mr. BoATNBR. I would like to ask some questions as to the general 
scope of the civil-service law. 

The Chairman. Would it not be better to postpone that until we are 
through with these charges ? This witness will have to be recalled, 

TESTIMONY OF W. S. STURGES. 

W^. S. Sturges, sworn and examined. 
' By Mr. Bwart : 

Q. Please state you name, residence, and occupation. — A. W. S. 
Sturges ; my legal residence is ISTew York City ; I am a clerk in the 
office of the Adjutant- General. 

Q. Were you ever in the employ of the Civil Service Commission f — 
A. Yes, sir; from the 1st of August, 1.S88, to the 1st of February, 1890. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Bailey? — A. Quite well. 

(^. At present stenographer in the Civ^il Service Commission 1 — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What position does he hold!— A. I believe he is stenographer, 
an. I an $1,800 clerk. 

Q. Did you occupy a desk in the room with him ? — A. I occupied a 
de>k in an adjoining room for a year previous to his promotion. 

Q. Did he do any stenographic work at that time? — A. JSTot to my 
knowledge. * 

Q. Were you in a position to know if he had ?— A. lam quite sure of it. 

Q. State if he was ever called upon to do any stenographic work of 
any kind. — A, Not for a year preceding his promotion. 

Q. Do you know that Mr. Bailey was not called upon as a stenogra- 
plicr? — A. He was not, to the best ol my knowledge. 

Q. You say you know he was not? — A. I had a good opj)ortuuity to 
know it. 

Mr. Roosevelt. Do you know that Major Webster frequently used 
him as a stenographer? 

The Witness. IsTo, sir. 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. If Major Webster had used him as a stenographer, you would 
have known it? — A. I know that he wrote a great many letters, but I 
do not think that Major Webster used him as an amanuensis. He told 
IMr. Bailey what he wanted written. 

Q. Were you ever present? — A. After he was appointed steuog- 
ra})her. 

Q. You say you h)i02v that he was not called upon to do stenographic 

. 3117 6 



82 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

work. Were you present at any time when Major Webster dictated to 
liim ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you occupy the same room Major Webster did ? — A. I occu- 
pied the adjoining room. 

Q. Are you aware that Major Webster frequently used him as an 
amanuensis during that period ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. J3o you know that he frequently wrote letters for Major Webster ? 
— A. I know that he wrote a great many letters. 

Q. You say Major Webster did not dictate letters to him, but fre- 
quently told him what he wanted him to write ? — A. That was my 
observation. 

Q. Were you present on any occasion when Major Webster told him 
what he wanted him to write ? — A. 1 think I have been. 

Q. On how many occasions 1 — A. On some; I don't remember how 
many. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Did you observe whether he was taking down notes when he wrote 
letters "I — A. He may have taken notes, but I don'r think that he took 
them in short-hand. 

Q. You don't know whether he did or not ? — A. I do not think he 
did. 

By Mr. Greenhalge ; 

Q. Where was Major Webster's room, as regards yours? — A. It was 
adjoining. 

Q. Do you undertake to say what Major Webster and Mr. Bailey 
were doing when they were in an adjoining room? — A. My work was 
quite closely connected with theirs. 

Q. How closely was it connected with theirs 1 — A. I had charge of 
all the applications and everything in reference to an examination, 
and Mr. Bailey had general charge of the examinations and wrote 
letters. 

Q. You mean that you worked together in the same room ? — A. I do 
not say that we worked in the same room, 

Q. Did the work which you did in connection with the work of Major 
Webster and Mr. Bailey enable you to tell what they were doing, and 
the manner of their work, when you were in a different room "? — A. I 
had to go into their room quite often. 

Q, Do you mean to say with any distinctness that you can remember 
as to the employment of Mr. Bailey with the work of Major Webster— 
whether it was dictation, copying, or otherwise? — A. I do not think he 
ever copied anything for Major Webster. 

By Mr. Eoos'EVELT : 

Q. Have you any personal feelings against Major Webster?— A. 
Yes, sir ; I have. 

Q. On what grounds ? — A. I don't think he treated me fairly. 

Q. Have you any feelings against Mr. Bailey? — A. None at all. 

Q. You were formerly with the Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. For what were you dismissed ? — A. Making mistakes in marking 
examination papers. 

Q. On the report of Major Webster to the Commission ? — A. On one 
of his reports to the Commission, 

Q. Reports which the Commission investigated? 

Mr. EwART (interposing). I want to know what connection his feel- 
ings have with this matter. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 83 

Mr. EoosEVELT. 1 want to show that the witness has an animus. 
Mr. EwART. He has just testified that he has no feelings against Mr. 
Bailey. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q. "Your connection with the Commission was severed in consequence 
of certain errors repeated on more than one occasion ? — A. I do not 
think so. They were errors made in one set of papers, 

Q. Do you not know that you were twice reported to us by Major 
Webster for errors committed "? — A. I was reported twice. 

Q. When you were first reported by Major Webster, and the matter 
was investigated, and we determined to remove you, \ou came down 
and entreated to be allowed to stay, did you not ? — A. I did not entreat 
to be allowed to stay. 

Q. You saw Governor Thompson, and you said that you hoped the 
fault would be forgiven ? — A. I did not confess to any fault. 

Q. You asked to be allowed to stay and see if you could not do per- 
fectly satisfactory work? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And about a month afterward you were again reported as doing 
unsatisfactory work ? — A. I was transferred to the War Department on 
the request and recommendation of Commissioner Eoosevelt. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. And we told the Secretary of War all the facts. 

Mr. EwART. This is entirely irregular. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q. You were transferred to the War Department. Do you recollect 
coming to Govenor Thompson and myself and admitting frankly that 
you had committed these faults, and that you had nothing to say about 
it? — A. I had something to say about it. 

Q. You admitted that you had made the mistakes, and you made no 
complaint against the justice of the action of the Commission ? — A. I 
can not say that. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. I can. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Youhave no recollection of that? — A. No, sir. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. And you requested that you should be given a 
couple of weeks to see if you could not arrange for a transfer at a lower 
salary. 

The Witness. The Commission stated that I would have until the 
15th of February in which to resign. 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. Did you not make a special request that the reasons should not 
be given out ? — A. I did not want them to be put ou the minutes until 
after I had been transferred. 

Q. What did we say about that?— A. The last time I saw you, you 
said you had not come to any conclusion about it 5 but they were not 
put on the minutes. 

Q. Don't you remember coming and making a request after your first 
offense that those reasons be -not given out, for if they got out you 
could not get employment? You came to me and made a request, or 
an appeal, for mercy. Did I not say to you that it had always been 
mypractice to help and not to hinder young men; thati could for myself, 
and I believed I could say for the Commission, that we would give you 
another trial ; that I would report to them and ask that you shoukl be 
allowed another trial ? — A. You also told me that it was reported that 



84 CIVIL BEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

the papers were tliree mouths behiud. I suggested that I could not be 
responsible, because I had only been sis weeks on the board. 

Q. Do you not know that you came back to me and said that you had 
a sister depending upon you, and that it was important for you to have 
some employment, and that you would like to get transferred"? — A. I 
told you that I would like to get transferred. 

Q. Did I not say that we would be willing to exchange you ? 1 sug- 
gested to you that possibly we could get a place in the War Depart- 
ment for you ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I think I told you that 1 did not know the Secretary of War, and 
did not have much intiuence with him ; that I felt Mr. Eoosevelt 
would be glirul to help any young man, and would probably go to the 
Secretary of War in your behalf"? — A. Yes, sir; that he would certify 
that I was of good character. 

By Mr. EWART : 

Q. Do I understand that, after you had been given several trials in 
the Civil Service Couimission to test your capacity, and after you had 
been pronounced comparatively incompetent, you were recommended 
by Mr. Eoosevelt for a clerkship in another Department?— A. 1 was 
given several trials. They said I could not mark examination papers 
to their satisfaction. 

Q. And a member of that Commission recommended you to a position 
in tlie War Dei)artment ? — A. He recommended me to a position in the 
War Department, stating that it was very likely I would satisfy them. 
In addition to the first report, I was charged by Governor Thompson 
with having sneered at the Commission. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. What position did you hold'?— A. A $1,600 clerkship. 

Q. What were your duties as a 1 1,600 clerk ? — A. I had charge Of all 
the applications uiade by persons for examinations. 

Q. Was any objection ever raised to your accuracy when you were at 
work as a clerk"? — A. None, whatever; if so, it was never brought to my 
attention. 

Q. What work was it which was objected to? — A. I was in charge of 
the clerical work from the 1st of August, 1888, to the 19th of July, 
1889, when I took a vacation. I came back on the 18th of September, 
and I was told by Major Webster that I would not be put on again. I 
made five complaints to the Commissioners. The Commissioners finally 
assigned me to the board of examiners. 

Q. You were first appointed to a clerkship? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you were afterwards appointed to the board of examiners. 
What work did you do on the board of examiners? — A. I marked 
papers. 

Q. You graded papers"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. This, then, was the work which was not satisfactory to the Com- 
mission? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What were the duties of an examiner? — A. The board of ex- 
aminers marks all the papers for examination in the Kailway Mail 
Service. 

Q. You were appointed on the board of examiners when? — A. I was 
aj)pointed on the -51st of October last. 

Q. Are ai(i)ointments made to that board under civil service rules"? — 
A. The a[)pointments are made by tbe Civil Service Commission. 

Q. What was the salary ? — A. I had the same place on the pay-roll. 

Q. Sixteen hundred dollars ? — A. Yes, sir. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. OO 

Q. You spoke of Major Webster not treating you fairly. Was it ou 
aceount of the reports made or the character of your work ? — A. It was 
his refusal to give me regular duties for a whole month. 

Q. How did you happen to get out of the place you were in at first 1 — 
A. Major Webster told me that I could not come back. 

Q. How long were you on your vacation? — A. Thirty days. The 
morning after I came back, Major Webster came to me with some mes- 
senger work. 

Q. Why did he not let you come back ? — &l. He never gave any rea- 
son to me. 

Q. Did you complain to the Commission 1— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What reason did you give"? — A. 1 told the Commissioners that I 
did not care about doing that work. 

Q. Why wexe you not permitted to come back, and what reason was 
assigned ?— A. Major Webster never gave any reason. 

Q. Did anybody 'i? — A. I was copying this report. He said the work 
had never been done by a person graded as high as I was. He said 
my penmanship was bad, and that a $900 clerk could do my work. 

The Chairman. As an examiner ? 

The Witness. My work as a clerk. 
By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Where did you come from when you entered the Civil Service 
Commission "? — A. I was a clerk in the Treasury Department. 

Q. And you were transferred to a $1,600 place in the Commission ? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you held it only a few weeks'? — A. I held it for eighteen 
months. « 

Q. You did not do the work of the i)lace for eighteen mouths I — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you do the work for eighteen months before you went ou the 
vacation ? — A. I was transferred to the place in August, 1888, and I 
staid there until the 15th of this month. 

Q. You were really removed from that position as examiner on ac- 
count of incompetency ? — A. The charge made was that I was careless. 

Q. No fault was found with you as a clerk ? — A. Not to my knowl- 
edge. 

By Mr. Roosevelt : 

Q. Your last instance of carelessness was the marking of a series of 
papers for printers' assistants "! — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You overlooked a number of errors made in those jDapers ? 

Mr. BoATNER (interposing). If the purpose is to show the bias of 
the witness, I think this has gone as far as it is necessary. I do not 
consider it as pertinent. 

The Chairman (to Mr. Eoosevelt). You may ask the question. 

By Mr. Roosevelt : 
Q. I would like to prove to the satisfaction of the committee what he 
was dismissed for. (To the witness :) You made errors in marking 
these papers. Do you not remember that all those errors being in 
favor of the applicants, in consequence those applicants were entered 
on the eligible list at higher averages than they were entitled to, and 
they were notified of the fact that they had passed ? When we came 
to look over those papers we found those errors, and found that those 
persons lowest on the list, instead of having passed, failed, and we 
liad to notify the applicants that they had failed. This was after you 



86 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

bad been once reported to us for removal, aud your offense had been 
j^assed over by tbe Commission. — A. I never acknowledged that I was 
incompetent. Major Webster reported that I was inefficient. 

Q. Those are the facts"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You came to me, or rather you came to Governor Thompson and 
he came to me, and stated that so far as he knew your past charac- 
ter and capacity were good ; that you were careless on the Commis- 
sion and that that was probably due to the fact of the circumstances 
connected with your appointment, which was said to be due to Mr. 
Edgerton, and it was alleged (with what truth I do not know) that your 
appointment was a piece of favoritism on the part of Mr. Edgerton ; 
that you were, therefore, brought into continual clashings with the other 
members of the force. — A. I did not have any clashings with anybody 
except Major Webster. 

Mr. EwAET. After that you were recommended to the War Depart- 
ment ? 

The Witness. The Commission wrote to the Secretary of War about 
me. 

Mr. EoosEVELT, State fully why we did not want you. I did simply, 
as a favor to a young man and stated to the War Department the facts. 

Mr. EwART. I object to this form of procedure. 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. You said that I charged you with sneering at the Commission ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q, Think a moment ; did I not say sneering at the whole civil-serv- 
ice law ■? Did 1 not say that the report was that you were speaking 
contemptuously of it? — A. '•You did not give me to understand so. 

Q. Did I not say to you to go on and do your duty, and the Commis- 
sion would forget what was past ? — A. Yes, sir ; I think you did. 

Q. To go along and do your work ? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Mr. Eoosevelt wanted you to state what you were dismissed for. 
Were you dismissed 1 — A. They said they would dismiss me with two 
week's leave. 

Q. But you were not dismissed ? — A. ]^o, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWIN D. BAILEY. 

Edwin D. Bailey, sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Please state your place of residence, occupation, name, etc. — A. 
Edwin D. Bailey. I am forty years of age. I reside in the city of 
Washington, and am a clerk and stenographer in the ofhce of the Civil 
Service Commission. 

Q. What salary do you receive? — A. Eighteen hundred dollars ayear. 

Q. Do you hold the position of stenographer provided for in the ap- 
propriation bill? — A. Yes, sir; clerk and stenographer. 

Q. When did you commence to study stenography? — A. When I was 
a boy I made some progress in it, but had very little occasion to use it 
except in some work as a reporter for newspapers. When I was ap- 
pointed to a place in the office of the Civil Service Commission, I found 
that my duties would be to take dictations of letters, aud in view of 
that fact, I took a full course in stenography; employed a private 
teacher. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 87 

Q. When did you receive your appoiutment? — A. July 19, 1887. 
Q, Were you appointed as a clerk 1 — A. Yes, sir; a clerk at $1,600 a 
year. 

Q. Did you do any stenographic work there? — A. Yes, sir; from the 
very first I was required to take dictations. 

Q. From the Commissioners or from the chief examiner'? — A. From 
both. As I say, when I entered the office of the Civil Service Commis- 
sion, I at once commenced the study of stenography and I continued 
the study which I had left off years before. I have continued it up to 
the present time, 

Q. Woukl you consider yourself as an expert now? — A. It would de- 
pend on the definition of the word "expert." I do not think I could 
take two hundred and fifty words a minute. 

Q. Could you take this testimony ? — A. I did take it at the first ses- 
sion of the committee. 

Q. Would you be willing to take it now ? — A. Yes, sir ; I would be 
willing to take it. 

Q. Would you be willing to take it and turn your notes over to an 
expert? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Would you take this testimony and get your notes up next morn- 
ing? — A. If the committee required it, I should probably be compelled 
to. 

Q. Would you be willing to do it ? — A. I have no apprehension but 
what 1 could successfully do it. I would do the best I could. I think 
I could do it. 
The Chairman. When were you appointed stenographer ? 
The Witness. I should say I have been stenographer of the Com- 
mission for three months. I have not refreshed my memory on that 
point. 

By Mr. Ewart : 
Q. Were you examined when you were first promoted? — A. No, sir; 
I was not. 

Q. Your promotion was made by Mr. Lyman ? — A. It was made by 
the Commission. 

Q. You afterwards passed an examination, did you not? — A. Yes, 
sir; I afterwards passed an examination. 

Q. What was the date of that examination? — A. Probably the first 
or second week in January. I do not remember the date exactly. 
Mr. Andrew. How long have you been in your present position? 
The Witness. I presume about three months. I did not fix the 
date. 

By Mr. Ewart : 
Q. After receiving this appointment as stenographer, why was it nec- 
essary for you to have any examination? — A. I did not suppose it was 
necessary. I had fitted myself and I thought I was a competent stenog- 
rapher. I did not make a request for an examination, but I remember 
expressing to one of the Commissioners a wish that I had been exam- 
ined before I was appointed in order to quiet the apprehensions of cer- 
tain gentlemen. 

Q. Did you first call the attention of the Commissioners to the fact 
that you desired to stand an examination, or did the Commissioners first 
call your attention to it ? — A. I first suggested it to one of the Commis- 
sion. I have said that on one occasion I said to one of the Commission- 
CBS that I regretted that I had not been examined. 

Q. To which one of the Commissioners ? — A. Mr. Lyman. 



88 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Did Mr. Lyman advise you to stand this examination ? — A. No, 
sir, I think not. 

Q. Did you request liim to fix a date for an examination ? — A. No, sir, 
I did not. 

Q. How was the matter brought about? — A. I was examined before 
the Commission. I knew nothing about the discussions of the Commis- 
sion on the matter. 

Q. How did you come to decide to stand this examination ? — A. I did 
not decide to stand the examination. If you will permit me, I will state 
the facts. I was examined before the Commission sometime after I had 
expressed this desire to be examined. No reasons were given me why 
I was to be examined. I was simply asked to come before the Commis- 
sion and stand an examination. I did so and they dictated the matter 
to me, and I sat there and wrote out in long hand what they had given 
me, and I passed an examination. I do not know what the reasons for 
it were. I do not know whether they expressed a wish in regard to it. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Who graded -that examination ? — A. I have understood that a 
member of the board of stenography and typewriting, Mr. Shively, 
graded my papers. I have nev^er seen the papers and merely know 
from hearsay that Mr. Shively marked them. 

Q- Since you passed that examination, have you been doing the work 
in the office as a stenographer? — A. My work has not been very mate- 
rially changed. Really I was correspondence clerk. I was continued 
in that position with some miscellaneous duties in addition. I have 
one class of work which I did not have before. Some of the Commis- 
sioners had given me regularly their official correspondence, and I have 
done other work. I could not do it all, as my other duties would not 
permit, and there are several stenographers in the Commission. One 
takes the minutes of the board, and occasionally some are sent out with 
investigating committees. So far as the work of the Commission is 
concerned, I do not know that I did as much as any other one man. 

Q. HTave you ever been out with any of these investigating commit- 
tees? — A. No, sir. Do you mean out as a stenographer? 

Q. Yes. — A. No, sir ; I have not. My duties were of such a charac- 
ter that it was very difficult for me to be away constantly. 

Q. How long have you known Mr. Hoitz ? — A. I think I have known 
him ever since he came upon the Commission. It is probably over two 
years. 

Q. Would you consider him an expert stenographer ? — A. I should 
want to have the word "expert" defined. 

Mr. LiNB. The law and regulations of the Commission do not require 
an expert, and I think this is wholly immaterial. 

Mr. EwART. All I want to know of this witness is, does he consider 
himself as good a stenographer as either Mr. Holtz, Mr. Williams, or 
Mr. Culver ? 

The Witness. I have never had any opportunity of comparing my 
work with theirs. I have done all I was required to do. 

Mr. Greenhalgb. Are you any relation to any member of the Com- 
mission ? — A. No, sir ; 1 was a stranger to the Commission when I took 
my first examination. 

By Mr. Thompson : 
Q. Have you not duties in addition to that of stenographic work? — 
A. I have. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 89 

Q. In the absence of Major Webster are you not the acting chiefl — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And when he is present .voii are his principal assistant ? — A. Ybs. 
sir. 

Q, Did you hear Mr. Morgan's testimony yesterday ?— A. No, sir, I 
did not, 

Q. 1 will ask you if Mr. Morgan ever told you he hoped that yo-i 
would get the promotion to the place of stenographer in the Commisi> 
sion? 1 will ask you to state whether Mr. Morgan ever said that W 
you f — A. In answer to that I would like to state the circumstanceis.. 
Mr. Morgan came to me one day 

Mr. Stone. This is that irregular sort of testimony on which I thini 
the rule ought to be enforced. The question was asked Mr. Morgan if, 
about the date of this appointment, in one of the rooms occupied bj 
the (Jommission or its clerks, Mr. Morgan said to you that he hoped 
that you would obtain this appointment, or words in substance. 

The Witness. He did. 

Mr. Stone. I think that ends it. 

Mr. Thompson. I have two witnesses on that point. One of them 
is sick. 

Mr. Hatton. I would like permission to ask Mr. Bailey one question. 
Mr. Bailey has been asked in regard to what Morgan said to him, and 
I want to ask Mr. Bailey one question in regard to what he said \j 
Morgan. 

The Witness. Would it be fair to state all the circumstances ? 

The Ohaieman. Lot the question be asked. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Do you remember at any time that Mr. Morgan said he was going 
to leave the Commission, and you said that you were very sorry and 
that he had been badly treated? And did you state to him, "This is 
our hash and we must have charge of the platter?" — A. I remember 
Mr. Morgan saying that he believed he had been unfairly treated, and 
I remember saying to him that in my opinion he had not been, and 
when he stated to me certain facts which he thought were in the nature 
of grievances, I endeavered to make an explanation of those facts and to 
show that there was no intentional slight. I said I was sorry he was 
going. I presume I said it. I had the kindest feelings toward Mr. 
Morgan, and feeling so, I presume I said this. 

Q. Do you remember saying that the reason was that he was a Dem- 
ocrat? — A. I do not think the word "Democrat" was used. I do not 
think the question of politics was used. 

Q. He is a Democrat ? — A. I have heard so. 

Q. He is a friend of ex-Commissioner Oberly ? — A. Yes, sir. I would 
not be too certain as to what I did say to him. I remember that we 
talked on that subject. I do not think I could have said it. 

Q. Did you say, "This is our hash and the present Commissioners 
must have charge of the platter?" — A. Xo, sir; I am not in the habit 
of talking about hash and platters, and had nothing of that sort to say. 

Q. Y^ou did not say that ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Are you engaged in any business during office hours outside of 
your duties with the Commission? — A. No, sir, no other business. 



90 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

TESTIMONY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT— Recalled. 

Theodore Roosevelt recalled. 

Mr. EwART. Before this witness goes on with his testimony I desire 
to state here that I want the rule strictly enforced. I would be glad to 
hear anything Mr. Eoosevelt has to testify to, but anything in the way 
of a statement is entirely irregular. 

The Witness. I am pleased to hear that the rule is to be enforced. 

By the Chairman : 
Q.— It has been stated that you discharged or were about to dis- 
charge a clerk in your Commission by the name of Sturges, and 
that you afterwards obtained for him a transfer to the War De- 
partment. Will you please state how you came to make that recom- 
mendation ■? — A. Mr. Sturges had come to me two or three times du- 
ring last summer to explain that there was a prejudice against him 
in the Commission. On the other hand, I had heard from at least four 
or five employes of the Commission that he was doing bad work in the 
Commission. He was reported to us twice by Major Webster for dis- 
missal for bad work. The first time he came it was to Governor Thomp- 
son, and Governor Thompson came to me. He came to Governor 
Thompson and spoke in a very humble manner, stating that he was 
just starting in life, and that it would give him a black eye if he were 
turned out of the Commission. He admitted that we were justified in 
our action, but asked that we should have mercy on him. At the re- 
quest of Governor Thompson I agreed that Sturges should be con- 
tinued a month longer. We had nothing against his capacity, nothing 
against his character or his habits. I, for one, and I believe the rest of, 
the Commission felt the same way, thought that he was careless, and 
that while holding this place he was not doing his work. The case was 
again brought to our attention. We found that even after our last 
warning to him another complaint came from Mr. Webster. His mother 
had been to see me to get me interested in his behalf. I told him that 
he would have to go. He then came to Governor Thompson, and Gov- 
ernor Thompson spoke to me and said that Sturges had got down on 
his marrow-bones and hoped that he would not be dismissed without a 
chance to be transferred, and Governor Thompson said he hoped that 
no obstacle would be placed in his way. I concluded that Mr. Sturges was 
a round peg in a square hole. I thought that he might do good work in 
some other office. Mr. Morgan does good work in the mint, but he 
certainly was not a satisfactory clerk to the Commission, although per- 
sonally I always got along with him. Mr. Morgan did not do good 
work on our Commission. Governor Thompson came to me and stated 
that Sturges had arranged for a transfer, and wanted to know would I 
be willing to go to the Secretary of War, explain this to the Secretary 
and see if they would be willing to take him on my statement. I went 
there. I did not see the Secretary of War, but I saw a gentleman in 
the Adjutant-General's office. I stated what the case was. They said 
they would be perfectly willing to give him a trial. Sturges was ex- 
changed for a man who was detailed as a stenographer in our office. 

By Mr. Stone : 
Q. Is it the custom of the Commission to visit the Departments with 
the view of having persons appointed, or see that they have preferences 
in the matters of transfers, or anything of that sort"? — A. In the case 
of our own employes it is an eminently proper thing, and we always 
do it. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 91 

Q. If tliis man Stnrges had been employed in some other Bureau or 
Department and was unsatisfactory there, would you consider it aproper 
thing to go to a difierent Department and ask that he might be trans- 
ferred to the Department? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Then you make a difference where the employes of your Commis- 
sion are concerned ? — A, Yes, sir ; our Commissioners are the only 
men who can speak for them. 

Mr. Greenhalge. Is there any waiver of examination ujion a pro- 
motion or transfer to another Department 1 — A. No, sir ; this was a per- 
fectly regular transfer. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. The transfer was regular, but what I was trying to get at was 
the practice of the Commission in soliciting departmental ofticers. — A. 
I will give you a statement on that subject. We have detailed to our 
Department a number of men from the boards of examiners in the dif- 
ferent Departments. They frequently come to me to aid them. In con- 
sequence of being detailed from the other Departments they are losing 
their chances of promotion, especially in the Post-Office Department and 
the Pension Bureau. If our Commission did not go and speak for those 
clerks we would be basely ungrateful to them. 

Q. I am not criticising your action. I am only inquiring as to the 
system. — A. That has been the practice in the past and will be in the 
future. 

By the Chairman : * 

Q. The fact in this case is that the Commission thought that Mr. 
Sturges was a competent and efBcient clerk as a clerk, but not a man 
qualified to work as an examiner in your Commission, and therefore they 
recommended this transfer 1 — A. That is precisely the case. Those are 
the terms of our letter. The letter stated he was capable, of good habits 
and of good character. I think those are the three things mentioned. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. If he was not competent as a clerk in your Commission, upon what 
theory would you recommend him to the Adjutant-General's office"? — 
A. Because I think in our Commission Mr. Sturges labored under the 
disadvantage of having been a great protege of a former Commissioner. 
It was currently reported that he got his place through favoritism, and 
he was all the time thinking that he was being slighted. Complaints 
were made to us by Major Webster that he would smoke and read dur- 
ing office hours, and I thought myself and I believe 1 expressed that 
opinion to Governor Thompson, that it was entirely due to his being- 
disgruntled with the Commission. I thought he was a round peg in a 
square hole. 

Q. All this was done out of the purest kindness ? — A. It was done 
out of the purest kindness to Mr. Sturges. 

Q. Without reference to his qualifications or efficiency ? — A. With 
absolute reference to his qualifications and efficiency; with direct and 
studied reference to it. 

Q. I want you to state whether or not you said that Sturges had been 
guilty of serious and gross irregularities ? — A. I answer that question 
by saying that 1 can not recollect precisely what I stated. I can not 
answer that yes or no ; I do not recollect it. I told him that Sturges 
was not satisfactory to us. I told him the reason he was unsatisfactory 
to us I believed to be due to exceptional circumstances connected with 
his position in the Commission j that it was currently believed his ap- 



92 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

poiutinent was due to the favoritism of Mr. Edj4erton, and that it im- 
paired Ms service with us ; that he was no longer useful to us, but I 
did not think it would interfere with his being useful in the War De- 
partment. 

I would like to make a brief statement in reference to Mr. Bailej'. We 
have no official stenographer at present. There was one appointed by 
the old provisions of the api^ropriation act for the Civil Service Oom^ 
mission. That has been dropped by Congress. Congress now appro- 
priates for eleven clerks and messengers, and makes the stipulation thai 
at least one of those shall be a stenographer; one of the fourth-class 
clerks shall be a stenographer. As a matter of fact we have three 
stenographers. At the time of Mr. Bailey's promotion I was away, but 
I concurred in it fully. We had at the Commission at that time, as far 
as I know, only three men able to do stenographic work. I had seen 
Mr. Bailey employed by Major Webster doing stenographic work. Mr. 
Swank did the bulk of the work, and he is a $900 clerk, I have no 
means of knowing which of the stenographers is the most efficient. I 
should say that Mr. Swank is, merely because he has been doing the 
bulk of the work. I believe Mr. Holtz is a better stenographer than 
Mr. Bailey. We chose him (Bailey) with relerence to his efficiency as 
a clerk and stenographer, and not purely with reference to his efficiency 
as a stenographer alone. 

Since T have been on the Commission we have tried always to make 
promotions from grade to grade. We have eleven employes and seven 
grades.' Unless there was a good reason for it, we would object to 
jumping a grade. We would object to jumping a $1,600 man over an 
$1,800 man. If we considered purely the question of stenography, we 
might have promoted the man at $900 over the head of all the others 
to the $1,800 place. Mr. Swank is an excellent man. He is well fitted 
for his position, but he was not the best fitted nuan for Mr. Bailey's po- 
sition at all. What we wanted was a clerk and stenographer combined, 
and it was my belief that it would have been a great injustice to have 
passed over Mr. Bailey and taken Mr. Holtz from a $1,400 place and 
given him the $1,800 position over Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey was doing 
a higher grade of work, and had been longer on the force. We have 
always striven to make promotions according to grade. It is not always 
practicable to do that. No examination for promotion was required 
under the law. ISTow we certify a clerk. He can be appointed to a 
$1,400, a $1,600, or an $1,800 position. We can appoint him to an 
$ 1,800 position right away. There is no rule of law preventing that. A 
written examination for passing from one grade to another is not required, 
except at the War Department, where that system has uniformly been 
tried, and 1 think it is a failure. That is my private opinion. 

In an office like our office with seven grades, where three are filled by 
only one man and the other four by two each, doing entirely different 
kinds of work, any competitive system is out of the question. It is like 
a county fair; you can not make a competition between a racehorse 
and a short-horn bull, as no common test will not apply. You can have 
a test for a race-horse and a test for a short-horn bull. Mr. Bailey, as 
I say, was promoted to this position in my absence. When I came back 
I was informed of his promotion, and agreed to it. I had seen that he 
was a stenographer. I had never looked at his examination papers; 
nor had I looked at those of Mr. Holtz and Mr. Swank. I had taken 
it for granted that he had ])assed an examination. Later it was called 
to my attention — about three months afterwards (I think by Gov- 
ernor Thompson, but I may be in error) — that Mr. Bailey was charged 
with not being a stenographer. I then made some investigation, 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 93 

and I heard that Mr. Morgan had told Governor Thompson that Mr. 
Bailey was not a steuograpber. Several pieces had appeared in the 
papers aboat that time in reference to the Civil Service Commission. 
I then went to Mr. Lyman and asked him if Mr. Bailey had taken a 
stenographic examination. I said that I thought we ought to have a 
man as stenographer who could pass an examinatiou. That was a per- 
sonal opinion of mine. I think that was the opinion of the other Com- 
missiouers also. We talked the matter over, and we agreed that Mr. 
Bailey should be tested as a stenographer, and I said on my own re- 
sponsibility I did not know how the other members felt, that I would 
not be willing to keep a man who could not pass an examination. 

Accordingly, we examined Mr. Bailey, Governor Thompson reading 
in the regular form one paragraph of the stenographic examination and 
Mr. Lyman reading the next paragraph. We examined him and sent 
the paper to the ordinary board of markers. They marked the i)apers 
and it was found that he passed at 73. Mr. Holtz's grade was 67. Mr. 
Swank's (the $900 clerk) was 81. It would have been a self-evident ab- 
surdity to have given Mr. Holtz the position which Mr. Bailey now holds. 
Mr. Bailey holds the highest and most important position in our Bureau. 
Since he passed this examinatioQ all of my stenographic work has been 
given to Mr, Bailey. I have written some letters to the chairman of 
this committee ; I have written some to Mr. Boatner and some to most 
of the members within the last two months, and those which do not 
appear in my own handwriting have been vvritten by Mr. Bailey. 
Every letter in a different handwriting from the signature has been 
the writing of Mr. Bailey. He occupies the most important position of 
any member of our force. As an 1 1,800 clerk, he must be a stenographer. 
He has been employed for two months doing my work, and I submit 
that that is more than complying with the requirements of the law. 

By Mr. Lind : 
Q. Do you think that your personal appeal to the officer in the War 
Department had the effect of securing this transfer in behalf of Mr. 
Sturges ? — A. Yes, sir ; because if we had simply declined to allow him 
to be transferred, of course he could not have been. 

By Mr. Greenhalge : 
Q. The personal appeal was irrespective of competency '? — A. Oh, no. 



TESTIMONY OF HON. HUGH S. THOMPSON—Ecvcalled. 

Hon. Hugh S. Thompson, recalled and further examined. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I shall detain the committee but a 
moment, for 1 shall be brief. In regard to the question that I asked 
Mr. Sturges, whether or not he was charged with sneering at the Com- 
mission, 1 have no doubt that he meant to say what the facta were ; buc 
he is mistaken. When an order was made to dismiss Mr. Sturgis, in 
January, he came to me and made an appeal for mercy, and I sa>id to 
him, " Sturges, I have looked into this matter, and I am satisfied that 
you are not in sympathy at all with this Commission ; that you do not 
believe in the civil service law; and I believe, therefore, that you are 
not discharging the duties of your place, except in a perfunctory way." 
I had a great many employes under me in the Treasury (as it will be 
remembered that I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury), and I 
had had some experience in these matters. lu the Treasury I promoted 



94 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

8ome clerks and reduced others. I told Mr. Sturges I am satisfied that 
you have the capacity to go on with this work, but I believe the reason 
you are not succeeding is that you are not in sympathy with your work. 
I advise you to go to work like a man. If you have made yourself ob- 
jectionable to your fellow-clerks, try to overcome those troubles. I told 
him that if he would go ahead and do his work, we would give him 
another trial. He assurred me that there would be no further trouble. 

By Mr. Hopkins : 

Q. When was this talk with Sturges ? — A. It was in January. We 
thought we could not retain him. I got a letter from a friend of mine, 
a Democrat and a general in the late war, making an appeal for Stur- 
ges. I answered that letter, but kept no copy of th e reply. I remember 
stating that Sturges was an unsatisfactory clerk. He had been appointed 
by Mr. Edgerton, and that after Mr. Edgerton left he seemed to be more 
careless than ever. I remember that I was a little influenced by this 
feeling, l^ou may remember that Mr. Cleveland appointed me at that 
time. I was not confirmed by the Senate, and President Harrison ap- 
pointed me afterwards. It will be remembered that Mr. Edgerton had 
published some strictuies against me, and certainly he had said some 
very harsh things about President Cleveland. I think that feeling 
caused me to lean back a little bit. I did not want to feel in my own 
conscience that I had been harsh to the friend of a man who had been 
unfr.endly to me. That was one reason why I asked the Commission to 
give Mr. Sturges this trial. 

My colleague reminds me that I felt exceedingly sorry for the young 
man. I said that Sturges had "come down off his high horse." He 
claimed that he was there as a law clerk, and that he had passed a law 
examination. His idea was that he was to write legal opinions for the 
Commission. I did not think that the Commission needed clerks for 
that purpose. We did not need any legal opinions anyhow. When- 
ever we wanted a legal opinion we sent the case to the Attorney-Gen- 
eral for, his opinion. We did not really need a law clerk. When Mr. 
Sturges came to me the last time, I think he said that he had no prop- 
erty in the world, and that if he were dismissed from the Comuiission 
it would be a "black eye." With that view, he asked to be trans- 
ferred. We concluded that we would ask for a transfer for him, as we 
thought he might do his work well in other Departments. I told him 
that I had no influence with this administration, and I knew but one 
or two members of the Cabinet. I said that Mr. Roosevelt was a gen- 
erous, magnanimous man, and I had no doubt that he would speak to 
the Secretary of War in his behalf. We selected that place because 
we had a clerk from the War Department detailed to do our work, and 
he was satisfactory, and we wanted to get that man on our roll. In the 
Treasury Department I had repeatedly reduced men for similar offenses. 
One of the last cases I had in the Treasury was to reduce a clerk who 
was reported to me for neglect of duty and inefficiency. I reduced a 
$1,G00 man to a thousand-dollar place, and he was turned out soon after 
I left, showing that I was right, and that I did not go quite far enough. 
I did not want to do any harm to any man. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Your impression was that Sturges was a favorite of Mr. Edger- 
ton! — A. My impression was that he had become soured on the Cora- 
mission. He would smoke and read papers during olfice hours and was 
not satisfactory. 

Q. But he was a protege of Mr. Edgerton! — A. He was a j)rot6g6 



CIVIL SERA^ICE INVESTIGATION. DS 

and persoual friend of Mr. Edgertou. I do not mean to charge any- 
thing improper in his apx^ointment. 

By Mr. Boatner : 
Q. You heard the statement of Mr. Roosevelt this morning'? Do 
you differ with him as to the objects and purposes of the Commission 
in the action he took with reference to Mr. Sturges ? — A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Ewaet : 

Q. How is it that you did not assign him to a clerkship in the Civil 
Service Commission 1 — A. We had no strictly clerical service to which 
we could assign him. 

Q. Could you not assign him to the place of a copyist or some other 
position in your Bureau 1 — A. He had been tried in two or three places 
and had not succeeded. Mr. Sturges is a man of inaccurate mind. 

By Mr. Boatner : 
Q. Do you think a man of inaccurate mind can be a good lawyer 1? — A. 
He claimed to be a pretty good lawyer, and I thought it possible that 
the War Department might use him in preliminary examinations of 
legal questions. I think probably he could examine some character of 
claims that they have. 1 think Sturges could make a preliminary re- 
port on questions of law, but I would not trust him to make a final 
report on anything. 

By Mr. EwART : 
Q. You would not trust him to do any of the work on your Commis- 
sion ? — A. No, sir ; not as it is now constituted. On account of the 
great variety of work that we have, we have to arrange the duties of 
the difltereut clerks, and he could not perform the services of any one 
of them. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. It has been stated that he was a poor penman. — A. I do not know 
as to that. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. When we recommended Sturges to the War Depart- 
ment, we did so on a fair statement of his case, and asked him to give 
him a trial. 

Mr. Thompson. I think it was to General McKeever, or a clerk in 
his department, and it was upon a full and frank statement. He did 
not go there with a clean bill of health. If we had had a lower place 
in our force, I do not know but that I would have been willing to have 
reduced him and given him another trial there. 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. He does not seem to have reciprocated your kindness? — A. I was 
surprised myself when I heard what he said. The clerk with whom he 
exchanged was Mr. Hoyt. Mr. Hoyt came to me and said, " Sturges 
wants me to make an exchange with him, and 1 said to him I will make 
this exchange if you will keep your mouth shut." I said, "He can state 
anything he knows; our record is perfectly clear. If you choose, you 
can exchange with him, but let him talk all he wants to. Our record 
will show whether we are right or not, and make no compact with him. 
We do not want to drive him from employment," 

When the vacancy to which Mr. Bailey was appointed occurred, Mr. 
Koosevelt was absent from the city. I didnot know that theapproijriation 
bill specified that our $1,800 clerk should be a stenographer. I had read 
the whole law carefully. I must say I have never read an appropriation 



96 CIVIL WEEVICE INVESTIGATION 

act in Congress, except so far as it affected my duties. I did not know 
tliat there was anything iu the appropriation act which required that 
the place shoukl be held by a stenographer. Mr. Lyman is clear in his 
recollection of that matter, and I am equally clear iu my own recollec- 
tion. I had a couversation with Mr. Morgan and he surprised me very 
much in the remark which he made about Mr. Bailey. He said that 
he did not think Mr. Bailey could write hfty words a minute. I knew 
that any man who could not write fifty words a minute was not a good 
stenographer. I said, " I, for one, am not williug to have a man hold 
the place unless he complies with the spirit of the law." I thought that 
we ought to examine him, and if he failed we ought to give the place 
to somebody else. Accordingly, we ordered Mr. Bailey to stand an ex- 
amination. He did stand an examination and the board of examiners 
took Bailey's papers. They did not have any means of knowing whose 
papers they were, and could not possibly know whose papers they were 
marking. They were not in the Commission, but the papers were sent 
jnst as any other papers are, and they reported upon them. Their 
report satisfied me that Mr. Morgan's opinion as to Islr. Bailey's quali- 
fications was worthless. The stenographic examiners of the Commis- 
sion testified that Mr. Bailey was a stenographer. 

By Mr. Bwaj?,t : 

Q. Do I understand you to say that the reason why you subjected 
Mr. Bailey to this examination was that there was doubt iu your mind 
as to whether or not Commissioner Lj^man had a right to promote him f — 
A. No, sir; I did not know that the appropriation bill called for a 
stenographer until late in December. One day in talking with Mr. 
Doyle, the secretary^ of the Commission, he mentioned the fact that the 
appropriation act required that our $1,800 man should be a stenog- 
rapher. I said, " I am surprised at that." Mr. Lyman said that he had 
called my attention to it at the time. I was surprised when Mr. Doyle 
told me. I was satisfied I had not kuown of it. Mr. Morgan said Mr. 
Bailey' was not a stenographer. I regarded Mr. Morgan, and I think 
his reputation was that of being a good stenographer. When he an- 
nounced this opinion in regard to Mr. Bailey I was astonished, and I 
determined to see whether it was so. If I had found that Mr. Bailey 
was not a stenographer I would have opposed his retention and would 
have voted to put somebody else in. 

Q. What is your construction of this rule which prescribes how ap- 
pointments can be made for promotion"/ — A. During the three years 
that I had special charge of appointments, promotions, and dismissals 
in the Treasury Department, I presumed that I had a right to make them 
without examination. I did not make them without examination, and 
could recall where a man of very great intiuence came to me and ap- 
pealed to me not to require certain persons to stand examinations. I 
did not do it because 1 did not intend to have any special pressure 
brought about such matters. 

Q. Then in your opinion you thought an examination ought to be 
held 1? — A. I think it is expedient in a place like the Treasury Depart- 
ment, where they have so many clerks. I remember one instance, the 
case of a lady — I suppose there was not another person in the entire 
country who could do what she could. I knew that an ordinary exami- 
nation could not test her fitness, and I allowed her a special examina-^ 
tion. My construction of the law is that it was within the discretion of 
the head of the Department to say what the examination should be, and 
whether there should be any at all. He is the sole judge of that. 



CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 97 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Were you in the city when Mr. Bailey was promoted ? — A. Yes, 
sir; and consented to it. 

Q. Had you any knowledge at the time that he was a stenograi)her'? — 
A. I was not aware the law required that he should be a stenographer. 
This clause of the appropriation act I did not know about. 

Q. Do you know whether he was promoted as a stenographer or a 
clerk I — A. I thought he was promoted as a clerk. I thought we were 
following the precedent. I did not know what the law was about it at 
the time, and I want to do my colleague justice. Mr. Lyman insists 
that he told me so. I do not contradict him on that point. The first 
person that ever I remember speaking to me about it, and making any 
impression on my mind, was Mr. Doyle. 

Q. To whom were these papers referred ? — A. The regular board of 
examiners. They are not clerks of the Commission, but outsiders. 

Q. How are those examinations conducted? — A. Anybody about the 
office may read the dictation exercises. The result is entered upon the 
report. Then the report is sent to this stenographic board and marked, 
without their knowing whose papers they are marking. 

Mr. EwART. We would iDrefer not to go on with this charge until 
we get certain examination papers of T. E. Mitchell. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mitchell's papers are here. 

Mr. EwAET. I would like very much to have an opportunity to ex- 
amine into them somewhat before we put Mr. Mitchell on the stand. 



TESTIMONY OF H. T. HOLTZ. 

H. T. HoLTZ, sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. You are a clerk of the Civil Service Commission ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What salary do you receive?— A. One thousand six hundred dol- 
lars. 

Q. What salary did you get when Mr. Bailey was promoted ? — A. 
One thousand four hundred dollars. 

Q. Did Mr. Morgan ever say to you that you ought to have the pro- 
motion to this $1,800 place ? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Ewart : 
Q. When did that conversation occur, and where ? — A. It was last 
August, or September, when Mr. Eoosevelt was out of the city. It was 
the latter part of August or the first part of September. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Morgan that Mr. Bailey was not a stenog- 
rapher? — A. No, sir. 

Mr. Hatton (to Mr. Thompson). Is this [indicating] the regular form 
of the examination for stenographers? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hatton. Is this the form which was always used ? 

Mr. Thompson. That I can not tell you ; I am not present at exami- 
nations. 

Mr. Hatton. Were these the same dictations that Mr. Bailey was 
examined upon ? 

Mr. Thompson. Those are the papers he was examined upon, 
3117 7 



98 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Mr. Stone (to Mr. Thompson). I observe, in looking over these papers, 
that the dictations given Mr. Bailey were all made from this paper ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stone. Were these read to liim by some member of the Commis- 
sion ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir; and he wrote them ont. 

Mr. Stone. Has he been in the habit of dictating from those papers ? 

Mr. Thompson. I do not know. 

Mr. Stone. Was he familiar with them ? 

Mr. Thompson. I should say not. He could not have been fiimiliar 
with them, 1 think. A man can not take dictation from memory, be- 
cause he has to follow the words. Mr. Bailey did not know what he 
was going to be examined upon. You will see yourself that he could 
not take stenography from memory. Whether he had ever seen the 
papers or not I do not know. He may have seen them, and he may not 
have seen them. 



Friday, February 28, 3890. 
TESTIMONY or HUGH S. THOMPSON— Continued. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
desire to make a statement in regard to some portion of my testimony 
on yesterday which seems to have been either misunderstood or mis- 
represented. I distinctly intended to say, and I thought I did say, that 
there was nothing wrong in Mr. Sturges's transfer to the Civil Serv- 
ice Commission. I never meant to charge that Mr. Sturges has 
gotten there improperly or that Mr. Edgerton had done anything 
improper. My understanding was that Mr. Sturges passed the 
civil service examination at a high grade, and was appointed to one 
Department, I am not sure which, and transferred to anotlier Depart- 
ment. I have always understood he was a close personal friend of Mr. 
Edgerton, and that on Mr. Edgerton's leaving the Commission he rec- 
ommended him, and 1 never supposed for a moment there was any 
irregularity so l^ir ats Mr. Edgerton's conduct was concerned, and I cer- 
tainly did not mean to charge it. My own opinion about Mr. Sturges 
was that in a large othce like the War Office, where he would have a 
chief of division over him to watch the work, he might be made a use- 
ful clerk, but I did not think he could be made a useful clerk in our 
office, a small office where we did not have men enough to correct his 
mistakes. 

Now on another point. A gentleman stated to me that he understood 
me as using the word "influence" yesterday in the sense of political 
influence. Now, if the committee will remember, this was simply an 
exchange of clerks. I stated to Mr. Eoosevelt that I did not know the 
Secretary of War, and I thought it would be better for him to see the 
Secretary of War, as I, not knowing him, would not receive the consid- 
eration which he would receive, from the fact that he knew him very 
well. If it had been the Treasury Department I am free to say I would 
have gone myself; 1 would have gone to see Mr. Windom at his re- 
quest. He was with daily intercourse with him on important matters, 
and in a matter not referring to politics I believed those gentlemen 
would give him theirordinary consideration, and in the case of a transfer 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 99 

to the Treasury I probably should liave gone to Mr. Windom and lie 
would have given me the same respectful consideration. 

Mr. Stone. The expression used by Governor Thompson, as I remem- 
ber, was that he said to Mr. Sturges that he " had no influence with this 
administration." — A. Perhaps I used that expression with the adminis- 
tration generally. The only member of the Cabinet I know is Mr. Win- 
dom. I have been introduced to the Attorney-General and Postmaster- 
General. I would not know Secretary Tracy or Secretary JlSToble if I 
saw him. That is, I have been introduced to Mr. Blaine, Ijut I meant 
I have no personal relations with the Department that would give me 
consideration at the Department. At the Treasury Department I would 
be treated with consideration because I am known, but at the War De- 
partment I did not know that I would, because I am not personally 
known. 

Now, I want to say directly on that line. In the Sturges matter I 
want to say this. Hoyt, who was a clerk in the War Department, as- 
signed to the Commission, agreed to make an exchange with Mr. Sturges 
if it could be agreed upon — I think Mr. Sturgis had some friends there, 
but I do not know that; but they were willing to make the exchange. 
Hoyt subsequently handed me a production to be used, stating he was a 
good clerk and efficient, and had done satisfactory work. I never used 
that; ignored it; but I wrote and found, yesterday, the Secretary had 
kept the original which was sent to the Secretary of War. This is a 
copy of the original letter : 

United States Civil Service Commission, February 8, 1890. 

The requests for the transfers of G. B. Hoyt and W. S. Sturges are approved and 
respectfully forwarded to the Secretary or War. Mr. Sturges entered the service 
under civil-service rules, attaining a high mark at his entrance examination. He is 
a young man of good habits, character, and capacity. The Commission desires that 
these transfers be made for the reason that Mr. Hoyt is specially qualified for the 
duties to which the Commission proposes to assign him, and al-sofor the reasons given 
orally by Commissioner Eoosevelt to General McKeever and Mr. Tweedale. If these 
transfers are approved by the Secretary of War the Commission requests that they 
be made to take effect on the 15th instant. 

Chas. Lyman, 

President, 

I say, in addition, so far as the action of the Commission was con- 
cerned, we did not intend to bring it out, but in his testimony he made 
such an unfavorable impression upon me after he had gone upon the 
witness stand, that I turned to Mr. Eoosevelt and said to him we had 
better bring out the whole thing. It was our intention to give him an 
opportunity to tell the whole story ; we had nothing to conceal. He 
anticipated the very question which we wanted to show, the considera- 
tion with which he had been treated. Some persons may think, Mr. 
Chairman, that Lfor my part made a mistake in my action toward Stur- 
ges. I do not think so, and I never thought so, and whatever errors I 
may have committed in public life or private life, this is one thing I am 
perfectly willing to stand by, and I hope no more serious charge can be 
made against me than that I listened to the earnest request from a 
young man and I tried to help him when in this difficulty. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. In that transfer of Sturges to the War Department as originally 
intended, would it not promote somebody on the eligible list to have 
done so ? — A. Oh, yes. 

Q. You referred to the Secretary of the Treasury in your testimony 
on yesterday and you stated you never made a removal for political 
reasons 1 — A. I did not say that. 



100 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. I understood you to say so. — A. That is true, but I did not say it; 
I never made a removal for i^olitical reasons. I am perfectly willing- to 
say I made a good many and a good many reductions. If that case of 
Sturges had occurred in the Treasury Department I would have re- 
duced him. I have reduced men in the Treasury Department for just 
such reasons. I would have reduced him in the Civil Service Commis- 
sion but the fact was Sturges was not useful, he made mistakes and a 
lot of trouble and we had not force to correct his mistakes. I never re- 
garded them as offenses of moral character because I thought he was 
under such influences as rendered him absolutely useless. I thought 
his neglect of duty was rather due to his mental condition than to any 
deliberate purpose to do any wrong. 

Q. Of course you have made appointments for political reasons ?— A. 
Very many, but I never made any in the classified service. Outside of 
the classified service I made appointments myself for political reasons. 
Let me explain, I made appointments when Democratic Senators and 
members came to me with proper representations in regard to a man out- 
side of the classified service. I do not remember that I have, I can not 
say I have appointed Republicans, but I have promoted them. I can 
grant that. I never was asked by a Eepublican to make an appoint- 
ment. 

Q. Did you promote any Republican without an examination ? — A. 
No, sir; never without an examination. There were two cases in which 
I waived them. One I referred to yesterday was the case of a lady 
who was an expert in replacing mutilated bills. The other was a 
case of a young lady who was deaf and dumb and the examination 
was waived. She was known to be a bright girl who graduated at the 
institute of Washington. The examination was modified in her case so 
as to meet her infirmity. 

Q. When a clerk is transferred from one department to the other in 
the classified service, does it require an examination I — A. If not ex- 
amined before. For a transfer there is an examination made ; for a 
promoti6n there is another examination made. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. The impression you made on my mind yesterday was different 
from that as made in your statement this morning. I will say this, I 
assumed from your observations yesterday the inference that Mr. 
Koosevelt was requested to see the Secretary of War because he was 
supposed to have influence with the administration. I presume it was 
personal influence ? — A. 1 never meant political influence. 

Q. You never meant any thing of that sort ? — A. I meant he had 
personal influence with members of the Cabinet because he knew them. 

Q. I simply wanted to understand distinctly.— A. I repeat, gentle- 
men, what I stated just now, that if it had been the Secretary of the 
Treasury I would have gone in person. I would have asked it on reas- 
onable personal influence, but I would not have asked it on account of 
political influence. I did not refer to politics at all, it was simply a ques- 
tion of exchange of clerks and Mr. Roosevelt being well known to the 
Secretary of War could go to see him and have a personal explana- 
tion about the matter. It was for no other reason 

Q. That was the question in your mind "?— A. I meant to say his per- 
sonal relations with the administration enable him to reach members of 
the Cabinet in a Avay which I could not do. I did not care to go to the 
War Office and sit for half an hour in the anteroom waiting my turn, 
when I knew Mr. Roosevelt would be admitted at once or as soon 
as the Secretary could see him, on account of his personal relations with 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 101 

him. I did not know him at all and Mr. Eoosevelt knew him very well. 
I did not know the Secretary at all. 

Kow, sir, before I leave the stand, I want to say in reply to the ques- 
tion that Mr. Hatton asked just now whether I ever made appointments 
for political reasons, I will state that I have no recollection that any Re- 
publican ever asked me to make an appointment. I have several times 
been asked by Republicans to consider cases of promotion, a thing 
which anybody had a perfect right to ask me and to say, " Such and 
such a person is up here for promotion and I would like for yoii to con- 
sider it favorably." I have always replied and stated that he or she 
must stand an examination and that we could not settle it until the ex- 
amination was taken. Now, as to the matter about politics, I am a good 
deal of a partisan myself, but I have never appointed a man simply be- 
cause Senators and members of Congress said he was a Democrat, tliougb 
I knew perfectly well when Democratic Senators and Representatives 
recommended a man for appointment they recommended him because he 
belonged to the party. If they did not I took it for granted more 
or less. Outside of the classified service I do not recollect that 1 
ever appointed a Republican to office. I am quite sure I never have. 
Possibly in minor appointments like messengers or assistant messen- 
gers I may have done so, but I know in a high office like a chief of a 
division or places above the classified service I could make affidavit that I 
never appointed any one but a Democrat. 

Q. You do right about that. I just wanted to ask this question. 
You said you never made a promotion without an examination ? — A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Why did you insist upon the examination ? — A. Because, as I 
recollect, there were fifteen to eighteen hundred people in the Treasury 
Department, and it was impossible for me to know the fitness of all these 
men. 

Q. Because the civil service law required the examination? — A. No; 
because I thought the examination was the best test for promotion 
where there were so many clerks. Mr. Fairchild never interfered in 
these things much at all ; he never knew that appointments were made. 
Sometimes I would tell him about these matters, but he turned them 
over to me almost entirely. I could not possibly know all these clerks, 
as I had an immense amount of work to do. I sometimes signed fifteen 
hundred papers a day — twelve to fifteen hundred a day. 1 had a great 
many duties to perform. Mr. Fairchild was absent a great deal and I 
would be Acting Secretary, and it would be impossible for me to inves- 
tigate all the clerks and to know anything about the merits of those 
people — of this man and that man. I could not always trust to the 
judgment of my subordinates, and when they recommended a man or 
woman I always insisted upon an examination, and, so far as I can 
recollect now, I never waived any examination except in two cases. 
One was the special case of a woman — I do not know her name, I never 
saw her in my life — which case I have stated here before, where I or- 
dered her to be examined on her work. The other case was that of a 
girl who was deaf and dumb, appointed in the Treasury, whose knowledge 
of mathematics was limited. 

You gentlemen know that it is very difficult to teach mathematics to 
deaf-mutes. The work she had to perform was not mathematical, and 
to have given her a rigid examination in that might have excluded her. 
So I may say I never promoted clerks without an examination at all, 
except in these two cases. 



102 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By Mr. LiND : 

Q. While we are on this subject. While you had charge of appoint- 
ments to the Treasury Department did you make original appointments 
and promotions from the Civil Service Commission exclusively? — A. In 
theclassiiied service, sir; outside of the classified service, no. There is 
a large number of appointments outside of the classified service. If an 
applicant was not in Washington it would be a great hardship for her 
or him to come here to be looked at, and then for me to say I am not 
satisfied with them. I have to have the recommendations of political 
friends in the matter. When I say political friends I mean Democrats. 

Q, Were not promotions frequently made from the messenger service, 
made in the Second Auditor's OfBce; I mean were not persons, employed 
as messengers and appointed as laborers, frequently promoted to 
desks ? — A. Yes, sir : that was frequently done until Mr. Cleveland 
stopped it. I urged it upon Mr. Cleveland for a long time. I told him 
it was a regular violation of law that had prevailed in the Departments 
as 1 was informed from time immemorial to appoint messengers and 
laborers and then assign them to clerical work. I first brought the 
matter to Mr. Manning, and Mr. Manning consented that I should stop 
all that. I mentioned that to Mr. Fairchild, and he looked at me and 
smiled, and ifeaid, "Have you got that all in writingf I said I could 
get it, and I took the hint and went back to Mr. Manning. It was said 
that I would have appeals brought to me by members of Congress and it 
was said I would certainly surrender. The appointment clerk laughingly 
said, "You have got yourself into a hornet's nest," and I said, "I do 
not care what members of Congress do ; I will stand by that." For a 
week I had api^eals made by members of Congress in regard to the mes- 
sengers and laborers. It was stated that it had been done time out of 
mind and there was nothing wrong about it. I stated that in my judg- 
ment Congress had made an appropriation for messengers and laborers 
and that they must be paid for that work and not for clerical work, and 
from the time Secretary Manning issued the order until I left in April, 
1889, I never appointed a messenger to do clerical work. I think I can 
claim that I induced Mr. Cleveland to do it. He made an order the 
29th of June, 1888, that no person aj)pointed as a messenger or laborer 
should do clerical work. 

Q. Is it not a fact that hundreds had been appointed to desks prior 
to that time?— A. Yes, sir; the way would be this: The chief of the 
division would have a man assigned as messenger or laborer and then 
the chief of the division would assign him to clerical work without the 
knowledge of the Secretary. The Secretary has nothing to do with 
bringiugthis about. It was only to stop what I believed to be a bad 
l^ractice that I broke up the entire practice at the Treasury. 

By Mr. EWAUT : 

Q. Followingyour invariable rule that you would not make promotions 
in the classified service except upon examination, if he had been exam- 
ined prior to his appointment or promotion, would you have required 
an examination to be made?— A. If the Treasury was no larger than 
the Civil Service Commission I think there would be no use for the civil- 
service law at all. We have eleven clerks in the Civil Service Cora- 
mission, whereas as fromfifteen hundred toeighteen hundred in theTreas- 
ury Department it is utterly impossible for a man to know the qualifi- 
cations of each. 

Q. By the same reasoning could not the head of the Department 
know who had only twenty clerks under him ?— A. There isnosuchDe- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 103 

partment that I Iciiow of. I know of no Departm( ut in wliicli there 
are only twenty clerks. 

Q. Say a chief of division, an officer of that kind who has twenty 
clerks under him. Why would he not be equally competent to test the 
fitness by actual observation 1 — A. The Secretary of the Treasury would 
be turning over practically the power of appointment to his subordinate 
and the power of promotion. 

Q. That is not the question. I asked if in your opinion he would 
not be equally competent, being familiar with the parties from actual 
observation. — A. Chiefs of divisions do not make promotions, the Sec- 
retary makes them upon recommendation of the chief. 

Q. I understand that. — A. I doubt whether there is. I do not know. 
I could not say how many clerks they have. 

By Mr. Hatton: 

Q. What time did President Cleveland stop the promotion of messen- 
gers to clerkships 1 — A. He stopped the appointments on the 29th of 
June, 1888. 

Q. How long was that before he went out f — A. He went out the fol- 
lowing March. 

Q. If, when you were Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, either a 
Democrat or a Kepublican had applied to you for promotion, you thought 
the best method of getting at his fitness was from an examination ? — A. 
Yes, sir ; I think so. 

By Mr. Stone: 

Q. I understand you to say that this custom or practice of appointing 
persons or messengers and laborers and assigning them to clerical work 
•was an old practice in the Department which had been pursued for 
many years ? — A. Yes, sir ; I do not want to go on record 

Q. What I want to get at is whether prior to Mr. Cleveland's admin- 
istration this was a fact? — A. This is a direct answ^er to your question. 
When Mr. Manning made this order, the Washington Post, the next 
raorniug, came out and attacked Secretary Folger. The Washington 
Post the next morning came out and stated that this practice had grown 
to be a great outrage, especially under the administration of Secretary 
Folger. 

Someone. Was the Post conducted by our friend, Mr. Hatton, at 
that time ? — A. I do not think it was. 

Mr. EwART, Before we go on with this investigation I would like to 
make this suggestion, and I do it in the most respectful manner to the 
committee. IsTow we have been favored with a good many statements 
in this investigation. We have avoided making any comments upon 
the testimony, and very properly so. Had we done so it would have 
been the duty of the chairman or any member of this committee to 
have ])romptly stopped us. We think we liave no right to comment 
upon anything and have no right to interjectanythingin the testimony 
"while it is being conducted — any comments on these Commissioners who 
are now being investigated. Now I would respectfully suggest that 
these explanations and statements and corrections of testimony are be- 
coming very alarming every morning. We were favored with a long 
statement from Commissioner Eoosevelt yesterday which was a cor- 
rection of a statement. We have been favored with another long state- 
ment by Governor Thompson, and we are still to be inflicted with an- 
other statement, an argument by Mr. Eoosevelt. I respectfully submit 
that we will clearly make little progress in this investigation if these 



104 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

statements are to be constantly made. If these gentlemen desire to 
correct their evidence, I think they have a perfect right to appear on 
the following morning, ask the stenographer to read the evidence and 
correct it, but I think it is not the proper time to make the statements. 
When the evidence is all in and the Commissioners desire to make any 
statement I think it would be proper for them to do so, but at this par- 
ticular time I think we will make better progress by allowing these 
statements to go over until the evidence is all in. 

The Chairman. Mr. Roosevelt wishes to make a statement concern- 
ing the testimony of yesterday. 

Mr. EwART. To correct any evidence ? 

Mr, EooSEVELT. To make an addition. 

Mr. LiND. I think, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ewart has stated a practical 
proposition. The committee, I think, would rathei' hear the bare 
statement of facts — not an argument. Now, for instance, the state- 
ment made yesterday was purely a statement of fact, because it ex- 
plained the reasons of action to the committee. 

The Chairman. That is what I understand Mr. Roosevelt proposes 
to give us now. It is merely an addition to the testimony given on yes- 
terday. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I was asked by Mr, Ewart yesterday certain ques- 
tions as to what I said to General McKeever and Mr. Tweedale, the 
chief clerk in the War Department, to whom I spoke about the transfer 
of Sturges. Of course, I could recollect only the substance of what 
I said. I went around yesterday afternoon to see the two gentlemen 
named, to see if their memory coincided with mine as to what I stated, 
and if I could refreshen my memory. I can now give you substantially 
what I told those gentlemen. Of course, after a lapse of three weeks, 
I could only give the substance of it. I went around — this is the state-* 
ment referred to in that paper read by Commissioner Thompson, as 
being made to Mr. Tweedale and General McKeever — I went around 
and told them we had in our office a clerk, Mr. Sturges, whom we in- 
tended to dismiss if he could not be transferred; that Mr. Sturges was 
a round peg in a square hole; that he was reported to have been a spe- 
cial favorite of Commissioner Edgerton; that this feeling produced 
much friction between himself and other members of the force; that he 
was insubordinate towards his immediate superiors; that he was a 
young man, however, as far as I knew, of good capacity, good character, 
and good habits, but that he had become entirely unfitted for any work 
in our office; for a small office, such as ours was, with less than a dozen 
employes, there was no position in which we could assign him where 
we thought he could do good work; and that the immediate thing we 
were going to dismiss him for was for an act of gross carelessness which 
we could not excuse; but we did not think that the faults he had com- 
mitted were faults of a moral character, or were such as would prevent 
him making a perfectly good officer in a minor position in a great 
department where there were several hundred clerks. At any rate 
the man had made a personal appeal to us, and that if we could 
show any mercy to a young man appealing like that we would be glad to 
do it. 1 told him also — there is one particular I can not recall ; at any 
rate, that is the substance. This is the substance of what I told him. 
Oh, yes, this is it : I told them it would be a good deal of a lesson to him, 
anyhow, to be reduced from $1,600 to a 1 1,200 clerkship, Avhich would 
probably act as a warning to him, and he might be very willing to take 
the opi)ortunity to turn over a new leaf and do very well. In other 
words, I told them frankly all the reasons why we were convinced he 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 105 

would not auy longer be of any nse to us, why we did not wish him to be 
dropped out, and prevent liim from having another such position in 
some other Department where he might do good work. 

I also want to make a little statement in reference to what the gov- 
ernor spoke about with regard to influence with the administration. 
Now my understanding was not quite the same as the governor's about 
that, i had never known Secretary Proctor until he came here, but I 
have met him since. I have felt that I, going around there and 
being known as a party Republican, and saying this much for a Demo- 
cratic clerk appointed under the last administration, that it would show 
that there was no party bias in what I was asking. Kow if it had 
been the Secretary of the Treasury, where Governor Thompson is well 
known, I would have suggested that he go himself. If, on the other 
hand, we had been under the Democratic administration, and either 
had known the Cabinet officer, I would have suggested that Governor 
Thompson would go merely because he was of that political faith, and 
that would give it a certain locus standi, and in the same way I would 
go as I thought I said in answering a question on the subject yes- 
terday by Mr. Stone. I went about Mr. Sturges — I went about two 
other clerks, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Van Hauken. Mr. Wallace is a Dem- 
ocrat and Mr. Van Hauken is, I know not what. I was undoubtedly in- 
fluenced in the case of both Mr. Wallace and Mr. Sturges by the fact 
that as they were Democrats and I was a Eepublican there could be no 
possible construction put upon my act except my being interested in a 
measure of justice given them which I considered as right and i)roper. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions to be asked? 

By Mr. Hatton : 
• Q. Was Mr. Lyman a member of the Commission when the Commis- 
sion decided to get rid of Mr. Sturges ? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did he say to you that Mr. Sturges had been an indifferent and in- 
subordinate clerk during the time of the former administration of the 
Commission, the one that proceeded your administration ? — A, I do not 
know. I recollect either Mr. Lj'^man or Mr. Doyle saying that Mr. Stur- 
ges had always been a bit of a lame duck. 

Q. Did he give any reason why he was retained as a lame duck ? — A. 
I think with great mercy — we were trying constantly to err on the side 
of mercy towards Mr. Sturges, because of the fact that Mr. Edgertou's 
relations toward his two colleagues were reported not to have been 
always pleasant, and we wanted to err on the side of mercy to a i)roteg^ 
of Mr. Edgerton rather than 

Q. As a matter of courtesy one Commissioner will be very lenient 
where another was concerned ? — A. If you feel hostile — you are simply 
asking my opinion "? 

Q. Yes. — A. My opinion is, that as an honorable man, if I feel hostile 
to another man I am particularly careful to do no injustice to any friend 
of his. 

Q. Did Mr. Lyman ever say to you he had ever recommended the dis- 
missal of this clerk because of his insubordination and indifference — 
that he was a lame duck as a clerk ? — A. If Mr. Lyman had recom- 
mended his dismissal he would be dismissed immediately. 

Q. Did he recommend to his colleagues the complaint made of Mr. 
Sturges, Mr. Edgerton, and Mr. Oberly "? — A. I know nothing about it, 

Q. Mr. Lyman never said that ? — A. He never told me if he had. 



106 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



TESTIMONY OF W. T. WALLACE. 

W. T. Wallace, sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Thompson: 

Q. What is your position 1 — A. An examiner. 

Q. In what department are yon ? — A. Civil Service Commission. 

Q. You do not belong to the Civil Service Commission? — A. I belong 
to the Interior Department, the Pension Office. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Morgan, formerly a stenographer of the Com- 
mission?— A. I do sir. 

Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Morgan about the time of 
his leaving the Civil Service Commission to go to the Treasury as to who 
should be promoted to fill the vacancy caused by his removal 1 — A. 
I did. 

Q. Did he state to you any particular person ought to be promoted, 
mention any name? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Whom did he say ought to be promoted? — A. Mr. Bailey. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Did Mr. Morgan at that time make any complaint as to the man- 
ner in which he had been treated by the Commission ? — A. I think not 
at that time; he had prior to that, I know. 

Q. How did you happen to speak of Mr. Bailey at that particular 
time; what were you talking about? — A. I brought the subject up my- 
self. 

Q. What did you say to him? — A. It was while his transfer was 
pending; I did not know he would be transferred and I hoped he would 
be promoted. 

Q. Did Mr. Morgan say he was an efficient stenographer? — A. I 
could not answer to that. 

Q. He told you he expected a transfer? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he give you reasons why he expected that transfer? — A 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What did he say ? — A. He felt that he was not treated altogether 
right. 

Q. He felt that he had not been exactly treated well by the Comniis- 
sion. Why did he say he had not been treated well by the Cojnmis- 
sion? — A. I could not answer that. 

Q. Certainly he must have assigned some cause ? — A. I do not re- 
member if he did. 

Q. Did he tell you he felt aggrieved at the Commission and did not 
make any statement in explanation of why he felt aggrieved ? — A. That 
was a general remark he made, that he had not been treated right. 

Q. Did he not give any explanation ? 

Mr. Andrew. You should give the witness a chance, you do not give 
him a chance to get more than half an answer. Let us hear what his 
answer is. 

By Mr. EwART : 

Q. Did he assign any reason at all? — A. Yes ; he assigned a reason, 
but what the reasons were now I do not recollect. 

Q. He did not tell you then at the time he felt aggrieved at the Com- 
mission because Bailey was to be promoted over his head, an incompe- 
tent stenographer ? — A. No, sir ; he never assigned that as a reason. 

Q. He did not assign as a reason that he felt aggrieved at the action 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 107 

of the Commissioners at the time tvas because he was not pro- 
moted"?— A. That he was not promoted'? 

Q, That Morgan was not promoted to the position of stenographer. — 
A. But he held the position of $l,8ii0 ; there was no promotion 

Q. If he had been retained, 1 should have said. Did he assign that 
as a reason?— A. No, sir; I think not. 

By Mr. Hatton : 
Q. Did Mr. Morgan say to you that he thought Mr. Bailey ought to 
be the official stenographer or would be ?— A. No, sir; his exact words, if 
my memory serves me correctly, and I think it does was that he hoped 
that Mr. Bailey would get it. He did not say that he was entitled to 
it, or that he ought to have it, but that hoped that he would get it. 

By Mr. EwAKT : 

Q, That is what he said, that he hoped he would get it?— A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. He did not say he ought to have it ?— A. No, sir ; he did not tell 
me he ought to have it. 

By Mr. Hatton : 
Q. He did not say he ought to have it because he was a sufficiently 
qualified stenographer? — A. No, sir; we never discussed Mr. Bailey's 
qualifications at all. 

By Mr. Thompson : 
Q. What State are you from ? — A. Mississippi. 
Q. What are your politics ? — A. I am a Democrat. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. When did you leave the Civil Service Commission ? — A. I never 
left it at all ; I am still detailed there. 

Q. I thought you said you were at the Pension OlBce. — A. I am de- 
tailed to the Pension Office, but I belong to the Civil Service Commis- 
sion. 

Q. When did you go there ? — A. I think it was in 1886. 

Q. You have been there ever since 1886 ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And in the employ of the Civil Service Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is, actively employed there ? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. You are practically an officer of the Commission ; do you consider 
yourself practically an officer of the Commission? — A. Yes, sir; I 
reckon I may consider it such. 

Q, You are one of the board of examiners ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Your duty is to report to the Commission any violation of the 
law that comes under your observation? — A. I should feel it my duty 
to do so. 

TESTIMONY OF 0. N. JOHNSTON. 

O. N. Johnston sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Thompson: 

Q. Please state what is your occupation. — A. Clerk in the Civil 
Service Conimission. 

Q. What State are you from ? — A. Maryland. 

Q. What are your politics ? — A. I suppose Democratic, or they will 
be. 



108 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

The Chairman. How old are you? — A. Twenty. 
Q. You never have voted ? — A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Morgjan about the time 
of his leaving the Civil Service Commission and goiug to the Treasury 
with regard to the promotion of Mr. Bailey to the position of stenogra- 
pher"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did he say ? — A. He said he hoped Mr. Bailey would get it. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Did he say Mr. Bailey ought to have it ? — A. No, sir ; he said 
he honied Mr. Bailey would get it. 

Q. At that time did you know lie had applied for a transfer *? — A. 
Yes, sir; I knew that. 

Q. Did he state to you whether he had any grievance at that time 
against the Commission 1 — A. No, sir ; he just stated he thought he had 
not been treated exactly right, but he did not give any reasons at all to 
me. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Did he say he hoped Mr. Bailey would get it on account of his 
superior qualilications as a stenographer, or why "? — A. He did not say 
why, but he said he hoped he would get it. 

Mr. Thompson. Some questions have been asked that would intimate 
that Mr. Bailey was specially favored in his examination as a stenog- 
rapher, because of his opportunities to examine the papers. 1 wish to 
make a brief explanation. The applications of one or more people ap- 
plying for stenographers are required to go to a desk where written 
matter is furnished them, and the examiner connected with the Com- 
mission may be the Commissioner, or may be any clerk, may be a man 
who knows nothing whatever about stenography, and generally is. He 
is required to read from certain exercises, from certain printed exer- 
cises, speeches, letters, and things of that sort. These i)apers when 
turned in by the applicant are folded up and sent to the board of exam- 
iners, who consist of stenograj)hers. They mark these papers without 
knowing whose papers they mark. Now, I shall show to you shortly 
whether Mr. Bailey had been in the habit of reading these dictation ex- 
ercises. We propose to prove that Mr. Morgan had precisely the same 
examination that Mr. Bailey had, and he had the same opportunity to 
see the papers; in o.ther words, that Mr, Morgan, who on leaving the 
Commission complained that he had a grievance, had precisely the 
same examination, and the same opportunities of knowing what he was 
to be examined on as Mr. Bailey, who is charged with having special 
advantages in seeing these papers. 

The Chairman. Examination before his transfer to obtain the posi- 
tion he now holds. 

Mr. Thompson. Exactly ; that Morgan had exactly the same, had pre- 
cisely the same as Bailey. I really never saw one of the examinations 
conducted for stenographers. 

Mr. Stone. You say you propose to prove. Are you making a state- 
ment of proposed proof, or are you making a statement of facts ? 

Mr. Thompson. I can state the fact and prove it. I can not i)rove 
that Mr. Morgan had seen these papersdirectly before the examination 
myself, but I can prove it by others that he had seen them ; that he liad 
the same means of knowing what was in the papers as Mr. J5ailey. I 
will say this for myself; lam personally ignorant of stenography, but 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 109 

I have always regarded it as an art which a man is bound to take down 
word tor word, and that the exercises of memory would not be of auy 
assistance to him. Stenographers say that when a man is familiar with 
the subject it gives them an advantage. My experience with stenogra- 
phers has been generally, gentlemen, that when 1 ask a stenographer 
in regard to what has been said, he could not tell. He would have to 
go and read his notes. I confess I have not had very much experience 
with them ; that is, I have generally dealt with those who are not gen- 
erally regarded as experts. I have had a good deal of experience with 
stenographers in my own home. I remember the man who takes the 
letters in the office never could tell what the letters were, and he was an 
exceedingly bright and capable young man. 

Mr. Hatton. If I am not mistaken, you stated yesterday that shortly 
following the promotion of Bailey, you had no personal knowledge of 
whetherhe was a stenographer or not ? 

Mr. Thompson. Ko, sir. 

Mr. Hatton. Do you know there are cases where stenographers were 
dictated to by the Commission ; is that always the rule that whoever 
does the examining does the dictating*? 

Mr. Thompson. Not always. 

Mr. Hatton. It has often been done before ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hatton. In what cases "? 

Mr. Thompson. For instance, Mr. Lyman has given stenographers 
examinations. I think Mr. Lyman had taken several trips. I know he 
asked me to take a trip. 

Mr. Hatton. You do not understand the question. Had any other 
candidate except Mr. Bailey, who passed an examination in stenography, 
been dictated to by the Commission 1 

Mr. Thompson. Not to my knowledge. I do not recollect it. There 
were three commissioners present when Mr. Bailey was examined. 

Mr. Lyman. I would say in answer to Mr. Hatton's question that 1 
have repeatedly given dictation to stenographic examiuatious ; any 
number of them. I do not know how many, but a great many. 



TESTIMONY OF E. D. BAILEY— Continued. 

E. D. Bailey, recalled and examined. 
By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. When you were examined in stenography had you received from 
auy one any information what dictation exercises would be submitted 
to you ■? — A. None whatever. 

Q. None whatever ? — A. No, sir ; none whatever. 

Q. Do you know whether or not Mr. Morgan, while he was clerk in the 
office, used the ordinary dictation exercises which are generally used in 
examination of stenographers, for applicants ? — A. I know he has. The 
exercise from which selection was taken on which I was examined was 
on a sheet which I believe contained the only exercises used by the 
Commission for about two years past and I know he has dictated many 
times from the same sheet. 

Mr, Stone. Was Mr. Morgan examined for stenographer on the same 
dictation? — A. Mr. Morgan was examined a little while before I was 
in stenography. He had never been examined in stenography by the 
Commission previously. 



110 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Was he examined on the same dictation? — A. I do not know; I 
could not say certainly about that. There are many selections on the 
Ijrinted sheet. 

Q. Then it was different from your examination ? — A. It was from 
the same set of dictations, probably not the same selection; in regard 
to that I could not say certain. That could be ascertained, however, by 
examining the papers. 

Q. Do I understand you to say you know the fact that Mr. Morgan 
had been examined on this same set of questions on which you had 
been examined 1 — A. The question asked of me was whether Mr. Mor- 
gan had dictated from this same set of exercises, and I answered to my 
knowledge that he had. 

Q. How did you know that ? — A. Because I many times when acting 
as chief examiner requested him to get for the candidates the same 
identical sheet. 

Q. This one sheet gi^en you, you recognize as the same dictation 
given to Mr. Morgan ; how did you recognize it ? — A. I recognized it 
from the ai)j)earance of the sheet. 

Q. Then you are perfectly familiar with the questions asked ? — A. I 
have some familiarity with the questions; yes, sir. 

Q. Then you stood an examination that virtually you had seen be- 
fore ? — A. I had seen these dictation exercises. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Mr. Morgan had access to this paper and he had seen the ques- 
tions? — A. Precisely the same as I had. 

Q. Do I understand you to say Mr. Morgan occupied the position as 
it was called here of official stenographer, or stenographer to the board, 
before having passed an examination, and that was only within a mouth 
or two before he was discharged that he was examined ? — A. That is 
the fact. Mr. Morgan came into the Commission without any examina- 
tion in stenography. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. There was no examination in stenography required at that time; 
it was not in the classified service. The question I want to ask you is 
this; you had dictated from these same exercises yourself before the 
date of your examination ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did that fact accrue to your advantage when you were examined ? 
— A. Only to a limited extent. It is possible from having read over 
these exercises it might have been easier to transcribe the notes, but 
that would only be to a limited extent ; it would be a help by that fact. 
If it had been possible to commit these exercises to memory, in tran- 
scribing the notes it would have been an aid. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you know from memory any one of the dictation 
exercises? — A. No, sir; that portion of my mental make-up is such 
that I can not commit to memory anything with any readiness. I have 
never attempted to commit any of the exercises to memory, and I doubt 
whether I could repeat successfully a line of any exercise on that sheet. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Why was Mr. Morgan examined before his transfer? — A. He had 
never been examined before as a stenographer, and in order to be trans- 
ferred under the rules of the Commission he had to be examined. 

Q. He was required to pass an examination in order to accept the 
position ot steuograj^her in the Treasury Department ?— A. 1 believe 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. Ill 

bis positiou was to involve work in stenography, and for that reason he 
took what we call a basis examination, either clerk or copyist, I do not 
remember exactly which. 

Q. You were promoted to his place, which involved stenographic work 
without an examination ? — A. I was promoted without an examination. 



TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. WEBSTER. 

William H. Webster, sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Thompson: 

Q, Will you please state your position in the Civil Service Commis- 
sion ! — A. Chief examiner. 

Q. Who made the appointment ? — A. President Cleveland. 

Q. When "?— A. In August, 1886. I took the oath of office the 27th 
of August. 

Q. What are your politics ?— A. I am a Republican. 

Q. Do you know auything about Mr. Morgan having had access, 
ordinary access as a clerk would have, to these examination papers in 
stenogra])hy, and whether he had occasion to use them or not before 
his examination ? — A. He gave dictation from them. 

Mr. Roosevelt. That is, Mr. Morgan had the same advantages, if 
advantages they were, in his examination as Mr. Bailey had. 

The Witness. Certainly. 

Mr. EwART. What was Mr. Morgan's grade in his examination ? — A. 
I do not remember the grade. 

Mr. Stone. It was less than 70 ? 

Mr. Roosevelt. No ; Mr. Morgan's grade was 88. 

The Witness. The papers will show that fact. 

By Mr. EwART : 

Q. The question was asked, what facilities Mr. Morgan had to ascer- 
tain what the dictation questions would be ; what facilities did Mr. 
Bailey have to ascertain that same fact? — A. He would have just the 
same facilities in getting the dictation from these sheets. The sheets 
contained several selections from speeches and letters and they are 
taken at random here and there. 

Q. So when he had an examination by the Civil Service Commission 
he certainly knew pretty much what the examination would be and 
he recognized it at once ! — A. He would recognize the sheet, but he 
would not know at all what the dictation, would be ; there are a large 
number of sheets, I think. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. There is a fact I would like to put into the record at this point for 
whatever it may be worth. When was Mr. Holtz examined ? — A. I think 
it was 1887. I am not sure about that. He was taken from the eligi- 
ble register for appointment by the Commission before the force of the 
Commission was classified and had to pass his examination, having 
failed on the previous examination. 

Q. Then the examination on which he obtained the grade of about 68 
was hiHd something like two years prior to the examination of Mr. Bai- 
ley? — A. Yes, sir; two years prior, probably more than that, but I do 
not know; probably more than two years. 



112 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By Mr. Koosevelt : 

Q. Mr. Holtz has greatly improved in stenography since ? — A. Very 
much, very greatly. 

Q. 1 simply bring that out to show in my question to Mr. Webster 
that the examinations that were given to Mr. Bailey and to Mr. Morgan 
were precisely such as and was no more advantage to them than the 
similar examinations in the past two years. — A. No more. 

Q. Another question; you had used Mr. Bailey as a stenographer 
habitually for about a year prior to his appointment as such? — A, Ever 
since his appointment I have used him almost every day, sometimes for 
a short letter and sometimes for a loug letter. 

Q. During the period Mr. Sturges testified he did not think you had 
used bim as a stenographer, at the same time you had habitually used 
hiui as stenographer. — A. Mr. Sturges was across tbe ball from me 
and if be bad attended to his duties there he would never have known 
whether Mr. Bailey was being used at all. The hall was between my 
my room and Mr. Sturges's room. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. You say you used him habitually as a stenographer ? — A. Every 
day. 

Q. Did you hear Mr. Bailey's evidence ? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you hear him testify that the bulk of the work was clerical 
work ? — A. He was called the correspondence clerk. 

Q. That being the case how could he have the leisure or time to do your 
stenographic work ? — A, To explain in regard to the matter of work, 
he is my correspondent clerk and writes part of the letters because they 
are familiar with those duties and one requires about the same answer 
as another. In answering such others as he is not able to attend to I 
dictate to bim. 

Q. Do I understand you to say he does the bulk of the stenographic 
work of that bureau ? — A. No, sir ; my business does not require the 
bulk of the stenograi)hic work. 

Q. What percentage ? — A. I could not tell you that. We have two 
methods of correspondence there ; the correspondence he does is in a 
great part of that which he can attend to from previous instruction, 
letters that are of similar purport and that he has written hundreds of 
times. 

By Mr. Hatton: 

Q. As a life-long civil-service reformer and a brother in the cause, do 
you not think it would have been better for both Mr. Bailey and Mr. 
Morgan if they had been examined on questions which neither had seen 
and which neither had access to before their examination 1—A. I doubt 
whether they could have memorized the several papers ; there is quite 
a large number. 

Q. Do you not think it would Jjave been more fair and more in the 
line of the merits of the system? — A. I do not think it would have 
made any difference to them. In regard to these questions, they have 
a large number and they are dictated, and people constantly have 
opi)ortuuities to gain information about these. We know this set of 
papers may be known, but there are so many dictation exercises, so 
many selections from different speeches, from different letters that it is 
hardly practical for any person to memorize all of them. It is like 
using an arithmetic; if you say to a man, "We will examine you out of 
an arithmetic," that man will not know on what portion of that arith- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 113 

metic you are goiug to examine liira. Ifc is no advantage to him to 
know that you are going to tise Davies's Arithmetic. 

Q. We are talking abont stenography. — A. The same principle ap- 
plies to stenography. Having several number of exercises it is not 
practicable for any person to memorize them, not knowing where he is 
to be struck. I suggested to Mr. Lyman when the report was made — 
having a large number of questions 

Q. What do you mean by large number of questions ? — A. Series of 
questions of all sorts of examinations. When we had 

Mr. Andrew. You are not talking of stenography ? — A. Stenog- 
raphy with the rest. 

Q. There are no questions in stenography ; there are exercises. — A. 
There are exercises ; they amount to the same thing. We call them 
question sheets ; it is exercises. 

Q. It makes a dilierence in my mind to say you give exercises for 
dictation and having known beforehand what was to be dictated to a 
person. I only wanted to know what you meant. One was all right 
and the other seemed to me ridiculous. — A. We have had forty-one 
series of questions which have been prepared and furnished. There is 
such a multiplicity of these questions that a candidate could not mem- 
orize them all. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. These examinations in stenography are not all held herein Wash- 
ington f — A. Oh, no. 

Q. Would there be any advantage to an applicant here for examina- 
tion in stenography if he had been i^reviously employed in your office 
and he had been handling these very papers time and time again and 
dictating from them to be examined himself from those papers ; would 
he have any advantage over the applicant say for examination in New 
York or St. Louis ? — A. No, I do not see how he could under such cir- 
cumstances. 

Q. Are the examinations there from entirely diiferent dictations ? — A. 
We have a number of them and if it were practicable for the candidate 
to memorize all of those he would have an advantage. We go upon 
the theory that it is absolutely impracticable for a man to memorize all 
the series and he would not know which one is to be selected. There 
are successions of exercises to be selected and the candidate not know- 
ing which one is to be given to him upon that theory that special can- 
didate would not have much advantage. If he was able to memorize 
the whole thing he would. If it was a competitive examination outside 
we would take more precaution than in a promotion or transfer. 

Q. You say as much'advantage ; it ought to be no advantage at all. — 
A. Not in the competition. 

Q. When there is a competition you put them upon the eligible list 
and certify the same according to the amount of grades. — A. In promo- 
tions they are examined without any competition at all. 

Q. Well, for promotions 1 — A.-For original appointments we do 5 they 
are all competitive there. 

Q. My question, if it has any force to it, would apply to original ap- 
pointments as well as promotions. — A. But this case was only promo- 
tion. 

Q. It would not apply to those cases ? — A. For an outsider we would 
have dictated ; we would have preferred a dictation that had never 
been seen by the party, that he had not seen the sheet at all. 
3117 8 



114 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Would an applicant for examination in stenograpby in the War 
Department have any opportunity to get at the exercises before ex- 
amination 1 — A. No ; not in the War Department. 

Q. Would any outside applicant for examination in stenography 
have any chance to get at the examination exercises? — A. Only those 
who had been examined before or who had friends who had been ex- 
amined. 

Q. If he had not been examined ? — A. If he had not been examined 
he may have friends who have been examined on these sheets. 

Q. If I understand you, you say that it makes no diflerence whether 
they had them or not ; why would it not be in the spirit of accommoda- 
tion to furnish the speeches before ? — A. They are printed in the 

Q. They have no chance to get at them as Bailey and Morgan ? — A. 
They have only the chance to get at the books or printed matter from 
which this may have been taken. 

Q. Suppose in the annual report were a list of questions and the 
Commission decided to change it after the annual report was issued and 
substitute a new set of exercises ? — A. He would not see thesej he would 
not have the chance. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. But as a matter of fact we have not changed them? — 
A. No, sir. 

Mr. Hatton. But you could change them if you wanted to. 

The Chairman. The next charge is the Mitchell charge. There are 
four witnesses here — Thomas Mitchell, A. B. Toner, M. Smith, and 
Cyrus Bussey. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS MITCHELL. 

Thomas Mitchell, sworn and examined. 
By the Chairman : 

Q. Where are you employed at present ^-^^-i I am filling the posi- 
tion, the desk, of an examiner at the Pension Office. 

Q. How long have you been in the office?— A. Since last September. 

Q. Were you in that office before that time?— A. I was a special- ex- 
aminer in that department for seven years. 

Q. Were you discharged ? — A. I was dismissed September, 1887. 

Q. What reasons were assigned for your dismissal ?— A. None what- 
ever. 

Q. In what manner did you obtain re-appointmeni; ? — A. Through a 
civil-service examination. 

Q. When did you take that examination? — A. I first applied in the 
spring of 1889. Do you want me to give a statement? 

Q. Certainly, give a statement. — A. I think it was in May, 1889, 1 
made application to be designated for examination. On the 17th day 
of June I received notice that I could appear at the regular examina- 
tion to be held in the city of Washington on the 9th df^ of July, 1889. 
I went to that examination ; there were some ninety candidates in the 
room. I presume you are acquainted how these examinations are con- 
ducted. 

The Chairman. You can just give a statement. — A. At 4 o'clock the 
gentleman in charge, whoever it wdn, I do not know his name, told me 
my examination was finished, and that I could go home. Ten days 
after that I received a letter from the Commission asking me to come 
there. I went there. This letter was signed by Mr. Thompson, one of 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 115 

the members of the Commission. His door was locked, and I then went 
to see Major Webster and I asked the purport of that letter. He said, 
"Were you examined in common law at the regular examination on July 
9 ? " I said, "IsTo, I did not know there was a law examination." He said 
there was, and took the trouble to give me a paper, and suggested then 
that I take a seat there, and he handed me a paper of printed questions. 
I should say that that morning I got out of a sick bed, and I was not in 
a condition to be examined, either physically or mentally. I sat down 
and endeavored to answer these questions, and handed them back to 
him. Some time after that, I do not know the precise date, I received 
notice that my examination had been rated — I would like to have the 
letter which I wrote to the Commission on appeal from that rating. 

Mr. Andrew. Was the rating too high or too low ? 

The Witness. The first appeal was August 1, 1889, addressed to the 
Civil Service Commission : 

Washington, D. C, 
.No. 805 Tenth Street, Northioest, August I, 1889. 
U. S. Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C. : 
Gentlemen: In the matter of my rating in civil service examination. No. 7277. 
I have the honor to appeal to you for a review of said rating, in relation to paper Noj 
7, "Questions on Law," or other papers of said examination. 
Very respectfully, 

Thomas Mitchell. 

That was refused. I then put in a second protest, and this is under 
date August 3, 1889, addressed to Civil Service Commission, Washing- 
ton, D. C. 

Washington, D. C, 
No. 805 Tenth Street, Northwest, August 3, 1889. 

To the United States Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C. : 

Gentlemen : In the matter of my examination, No. 19837, of date of July 9, 1889, 
I have the honor to request that I may he permitted to appear for re-examination be- 
fore you, in view of the facts : First, that sheet No. 8, on the subject of law, was not 
given to me at the time of holding said examination, bufc afterwards upon notice re- 
ceived by me on the morning of July 19, 1889, and without any prior knowledge that 
a paper of the character referred to, was a part of the examination. Second, I was 
not in a proper mental or physical condition to be subjected to the ordeal of an ex- 
amination on the morning of July 19, 1889, when I gave answers to the questions pro- 
pounded in Sheet No. 8, as designated. The production of this paper, at that time, 
was a surprise to me, and in the hurry and excitement of the occasion, without time 
for deliberation, many of the questions were not properly understood. 

The original proceedings were irregular, all of the examination not having been 
conducted at the time indicated in the certificate of rating. 

Under all the circumstances I trust that you will grant me a re-examination. 
Very respectfully, 

Thomas Mitchell, 

I handed that paper to Mr. Lyman, the president of the Commission. 
Mr. Lyman told me I would receive my answer in writing. On the 7th 
day of August I received a communication in writing from the Com- 
mission, stating I could go in the next regular examination to be held 
in the city of Baltimore, Md. I went there and went through an entirely 
new examination, and on the 13th of September I received a commu- 
nication from the Commission stating that I had passed the examina- 
tion of a chief examiner in the Pension Office, which is a high grade of 
examination. My understanding is, that is, in addition to the classihed 
service, a very stringent examination in common law and in the statute 
law of the United States Government and administration of the Pension 
Oface. 



116 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By Mr. Stone: 
Q. What year was tliis 1 — A. What year ? 
Q. That you took this examination ? — A. August 12, 1889. 
Mr. Thompson. And how soon after that were you appointed ? — A. 
On the 23d day of September, 1889. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. So you took two examinations, as I understand it, and on the first 
examination your rating was below the average. — A. A paper was left 
out. I was notified by the Commission ten days after that that paper 
had not been given me. 

Q. And you were examined on that paper and the result of that ex- 
amin'ation was you failed ? — A. Altogether. 

Q. You afterwards took another examination ? — A. An entirely new 
examination. 

Q. Were the questions identical ? — A. They were entirely different 
from beginning to end. 

Q, And you passed the second examination ? — A. I was so notified. 
I had no communication with the Commission from the date of my no- 
tice to appear in Baltimore until I received the notification that I had 
passed the examination. 

Mr. Andrew. Is this charge true, " That the said Mitchell failed on 
his examination held prior to his last appointment and that this failure 
becoming known to the parties desiring his restoration to the service, 
his papers were remarked and he was restored from the ineligible to 
the eligible list ?" — A. There is not a word of truth in that to my knowl- 
edge 5 there is not a word of truth in it. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Who interested himself in your re-instatement, any member of 
Congress or Senator ? — A. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I think we will turn the witness over to Mr. Ewart 
at this time. 

By Mr. EwART : 

Q. Up to the time of your discharge or removal from office you had 
been in the departmental service for how many years? — A. Thirty years, 
in various positions. 

Q. Ton were removed under the administration of Mr. Cleveland ? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When Mr. Lamar was Secretary of the Interior, you were in the 
Intf'rior Department '? — A. I was special examiner in the Pension Office 
in the field. 

Q. Were you removed for political reasons ? — A. I believe my place 
was needed for somebody else. That is the only reason I can offer. 

Q. You have always been a Eepublican ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There was no cause assigned for your removal ? — A. No, sir. I 
will say I was on a thirty days' leave of absence at the time, and it was 
a mere accident that I knew that such an order had been issued. I 
came to Washington and went to see the Commissioner of Pensions. 
He refused to see me, and I then went to Mr. Muldrow and he said that 
he knew nothing about it, that it was the action of the Commissioner, I 
ai)i)ealed to Mr. Muldrow and Mr. Lamar sent his private secretary and 
made an appointment to see me, but I have never seen him from that 
day to this. 

Q. Did you address a communication to Mr. Lamar on this subject, 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 117 

complaining that you had been unjustly treated ? — A. Yes, sir ; and 
asked for a hearing, that I might have a hearing. 

Q. Did you at any time give any reason to any public official why you 
were removed from your position at the time ? — No, sir ; beyond a i)olit- 
ical reason. 

Mr. Andrew. I do not think that Mr. Lamar ought to be dragged 
into this matter. 

Mr. EwART. I may say it is immaterial. Do I understand you to say 
you never addressed any communication to Mr. Lamar fA. — I did not 
say so. 

Q. Or any other person in regard to your removal. I would like to 
read — 1 understand you to swear you have always been a EeiDublican *? 

Washington, D. C. , 

709 Twelfth Street, Northwest, April 2, 1889. 
Hon. James Tanner, 

Commissioner of Pensions: 

Deak Sir : I have the honor to state that I was appointed from the army as law 
clerk in the office of Second Comptroller of the Treasury, in 1869, on the recommenda- 
tion of GoYernor Buckingham, of Connecticut, which is my legal place of domicile. 
In 1878, at the personal request of Secretary Schurz, I resigned my position in the 
Treasury Department and accepted the appointment as chief of the Indian division 
of the office of the Secretary of the Interior. I was subsequently transferred to the 
Pension Office, and there served consecutively for seven years as special examiner in 
the field, until peremptorily dismissed by your predecessor, John C. Black, without 
recourse, charge of any character being made against my character as a public officer, 
or any reason given to me by said Black for his course of action, although I continu- 
ously and persistently sought a reason from him. 

Afterwards, Mr. Black stated to Mr. Robert J. Vance, then member of Congress, 
from lirst Connecticut district, "that he had removed me on account of my Repub- 
licanism, and on the approval of Alfred E. Burr, editor of the Hartford Times, the 
leading Democratic paper of Connecticut." 

Mr. James W. Orme, one of the directors of the Washington Gas-Light Company, 
having recommended me for employment by that corporation, on his own volition, 
called at the Pension Office to ascertain the cause of my removal from the public serv- 
ice. At that place he met Mr. William E. McLean, First Deputy Commissioner of 
Pensions, who informed him " that I had been removed from the Pension Office solely 
on iiolitical grounds ; that I was an offensive Republican." 

Mr. Black also gave currency to the report "that while a si)ecial examiner in his 
office I had made Republican speeches in the field." 

In evidence of my efficiency, the quantity and quality of work rendered and a 
scrupulous regard for the integrity and best interest of the public service, I point 
with pride to the public records of the Pension Office itself. No charge has at any 
time, to my knowledge, been made against me personally as to the integrity of my 
character as an officer of the Government, or otherwise. 

My only offense, as far as I know, has been my allegiance to the tenets of my po- 
litical faith in the principles of the Republican party, which I have held since 1857, 
and for which I was without a moment's warning summarily and remorselessly thrust 
out of employment, upon the cold charity of the world with my wife and aged leather 
depending upon me for support. My wife being a sister of General John M. Brannan, 
U. S. Army, retired, and whose family are certainly entitled to consideration for his 
services rendered the Republic on many a hard-fought field. 

Now, esteemed sir, I pray that I may, through your kindness and by the virtue of 
your position, be restored to my right on the rolls as an employ6 of the Pension Office, 
and detailed for service as a special examiner in the field. 

I court any investigation that may be had as to my public or private character, 
and do not fear that any individual act of my life should see the light of day. 
I am, very respectfully, 

Thomas Mitchell. 

Mr. EwART. Did you write that letter? 

The Witness. I would like to understand your first question. 

Mr. EwART. In this letter you stated you had been a Eepublican 
since 1857. 

Mr. Andrew. What difference does it make whether he was Eepub- 
lican 



118 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Mr. Hatton. We certainly will not read these letters unless the com- 
mittee give us the privilege. 
Mr. Stone. He has read one, so he had better read them both. 
Mr. Hatton. We certainly will have to have a chance to put in a 

coupling-pin. 

Washington, D. C, 
No. 1104 Maryland Avenue, September 28, 1887. 

Sir: While on a leave of absence for the month of September, 1887, I accidentally 
received your letter, dated September 5, stating "That upon the recommendation 
of the Commissioner of Pensions my services as a clerk in the Pension Bureau would 
be dispensed with from and after September 30, 1887." 

The cause of this action on the part of the Commissioner of Pensions is unknown to 
me. It was not ascertained by me upon my personal inquiry at the Pension Bureau, 
but I was informed by the Chief of Division that my removal was the act of the Com- 
missioner; from him alone could knowledge of the cause be obtained, and owing to 
his physical infirmities he could not be interviewed by me. 

The present incumbent, for some reason, of which I am entirely ignorant, has mani- 
fested a personal antipathy to me from the very advent of his term of office. 

I pray you, sir, that the order for my dismissal may be revoked and that you will 
cause me to be transferred, by appointment, to some other bureau of your Depart- 
ment. 

Inclosed herewith please find letters in relation to my status, political and other- 
wise, addressed to you by Hon. A. E. Burr, editor of the Hartford Times, Conn., and 
from Hon. R. J. Vance, M. C, First district of Connecticut. Others of a similar char- 
acter will be forthcoming from other members of our Democratic delegation in Oon- 



I have, sir, the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Thomas Mitchell. 
Hon. L. Q. C. Lamak, 

Secretary of the Interior. 

Mr. Hatton. Did you write that letter? 

The Witness. Allow me to see the letter. That is not my writing ; 
that is a type-written letter. 

Q. Tou say it is type- written 1 — A. I will state that I wrote a letter 
of that character. 

Mr. Stone. Did you write one of this character ? — A. I wrote one of 
similar character. I do not know whether that is correct or not. 

Mr. Stone. Did you write such a letter ? — A. I wrote such a letter. 

Q. Do you believe it to be correct? — A. In the maiu, I do. 

Mr. Hatton. Did you write any letter in which you stated you in- 
closed letters of the Hon. Mr. Vance, Mr. French, etc. ? 

Mr. EwART. I desire now to read the letters inclosed. 

Mr. Andrew. Are these the original letters ? 

Mr. Ewart. These are the copies, type-written. 

The Witness. Where did you obtain these ? 

Mr. EwART. I am not on the witness stand. Keep cool, my friend, 
and you will have fun enough. 

The Chairman. Why are these letters material? We do not desire 
to take up the time of the committee. We are not investigating the 
former Commissioner of Pensions. Whether the man was discharged 
or not, he had a right to use such influence to try to get back in a 
legitimate way. We are investigating the Commission. 

Mr. EwART. He says he was removed for no cause at all. Then in 
a letter asking reinstatement he says he was removed because he was 
a Kepublican, and at the instance of a Democratic member of Congress 
and editor of a Democratic newspaper; and then he writes a letter to 
Mr. Lamar, inclosing letters showing that this man wliom he had stated 
had been removed 

Mr. Stone. I suppose the purpose is to show that he was removed 
for cause. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 119 

Mr. EoosEVELT. Allow me to state that this is wholly irrelevant. If 
he was removed for cause, after one year elapsed he could make an 
application for re-examination and enter the service again. 

Mr. EwAKT. I think we have a right to show the character of the 
witness. 

Mr. Andrew. If they wish to show the character of their own wit- 
ness, and impeach the character 

Mr. EwART We put some up with that intention. 

The Chairman. If this man was removed for cause, for incompe- 
tency, for any reason whatever, he had a perfect right if he was out of 
office for one year to apply for re-examination and enter the service 
again provided he could pass the examination. 

Mr. Hatton. This letter is a letter written to Mr. Lamar, just to 
show that in stating in his former letter that he had been removed — 
which letter has been admitted, that he stated what was false. 

The Chairman. I have no objection personally to allowing the let- 
ters to go in, but I did not desire to encumber the testimony. 

The Times, Hartford, Conn., Septemher 23, 1887. 
Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar, 

Secretary of the Int&i'ior: 
Dear Sir : Mr. Thomas Mitcliell, son of my old Democratic friend, the Hon. Henry 
A. Mitchell, of this State, a life-long and respected Democrat, and formerly a judge 
of our county court, has been dismissed from the Pension Office. He informs me that 
he does not know the reason of his dismissal and that his record of years of service 
in the Department stands high. As he is a Democrat of a highly respected family of 
Democrats of this State, and is capable and efficient, the friends of Mr. Mitchell in 
Connecticut are astonished at the news of his- dismissal without any alleged cause. 
He is to go out September 30. 

If consistent we should esteem it a favor if the Secretary would withdraw his dis- 
missal and transfer him to another position, 
Very respectfully, yours, 

A. E.BURR, 
Editor, Hartford Times. 



September 23, 1887. 
Dear Sir: The bearer, Mr Thomas Mitchell, son of Judge Mitchell, of Bristol, has 
been, by General Black, for some reason, recommended for dismissal from the Pen- 
sion Department. He is well known here and we can conceive of no reason why this 
action was taken. He now desires to be transferred to another position in yonr De- 
partment, and this is written in the hope that you may see fit so to do assuring that 
such an act on your part would please many here and give me personally much 
gratification. 

I am, sir, yours, etc., 

E. J. Vance. 
Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar, 

Secretary of the Interior. 



September 27, 1887. 
Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar, 

Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C. : 
Sir: I write in behalf of Mr. Thomas Mitchell, a clerk in the Pension Office of 
Washington, D. C, whose dismissal has been ordered. Mr. Heury A. Mitchell, of 
Bristol, this State, father of Mr. Thomas Mitchell, has long been an active and pow- 
erful factor in the Democratic party of Connecticut, and is entitled to some consider- 
ation. Thomas Mitchell has been in Government service off and on thirty years but 
always a Democrat. His record is first-class; also his letters on file from prominent 
Democrats of Connecticut. I therefore hope you can see fit to revoke the order of 
dismissal, and if possible transfer him to some other bureau of the Interior. 
Very respectfully, 

Carlos French, 
Member of Congress, Second District. 



120 CIVIL SEEVICIJ INVESTIGATION. 

The Times, Hartford, Conit., 

October 1«, 1887. ^ 
Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar : 

Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your esteemed favor of 
the loth. I beg leave to say that my letter requesting a promotion of Thomas 
Mitchell was so far giiarded as to make the request only in case it could be done ia 
the interest of the public service. I was not aware that there were objectionable 
personal reasons for the suspension of Mitchell, and I thank you for so kindly takiug 
an interest in the case and letting me know the truth, I do not desire any further 
investigation. 

Very truly, yours, 

A. E, BuKK. 

The Witness. Do you say I filed that letter ? 

Mr. Hatton. I S!iy you stated 

The Witness. Did you say I filed that letter ? 

Mr. Hatton. I did not say anything of the kind, and I am not on 
the witness stand. 

The Witness. You seem to think you are on trial ? 

Mr. Hatton. I think that is the difference between you and myself. 

Mr. Stone. Now, these letters have been put into this record- 

The Witness. May I explain how these letters were obtained ? 

Mr. Ewart. Now, I will ask this question. It seems from the letter 
written to Mr. Lamar by Mr. Burr that you were removed for cause, that 
there were personal reasons, and you stated in your examination that 
you were not removed for cause. 

The Witness. I do not know anything about that letter. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Do you deny utterly that you were removed for cause ? — A. I do, 
sir. Now, I would like to state how the letters read from Mr. Vance 
and Mr. Burr were obtained. They were obtained by my father. My 
father was an aged man, poor in fortune, and I was supporting him. He 
was a life-long Democrat, and when I was removed he tried to get me 
a hearing. Mr. Burr does not know me personally, and all these allega- 
tions as to politics were made in regard to my father. 

Q. Why did you write Commissioner Tanner you were removed at 
the instigation of these two men, who attempted a few months before 
to keep you in office ? — A. They did not attempt to keep me in office. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. When you said you were not removed for cause, what did you un- 
derstand by that; for any dereliction of official duties ? — A. I under- 
stand by that I have no knowledge of any charge having been made 
against me. 

Q. Against your character ? — A. In any manner or shape, either my 
character as a man or as a public officer. 

Q. Do you believe you were discharged because you were a Eepub- 
lican °? — A, I believe I was discharged because my place was wanted for 
somebody else. 

Q. That is not the question. I asked you, do you believe you were 
discharged because you were a Eepublican 1 — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you did notconside-r that a legitimate cause, and that is the 
reason you have stated you were not removed for cause"? — A. Merely 
political cause. 

By Mr. EwART : 

Q. Are you connected with any one in the Interior Department ? — A. 
How connected % 

Q. Have you any family connection, any relationship, with any offi- 
cer in the Interior Department? — A. With Mr. Charles B. Mitchell. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 121 

Q. What is the relationsMp ? — A. He is a distant relative. 
Mr. Hatton. Are you connected with any member of the Commission 
in any waj^*? 
The Witness. No, sir ; I have no acquaintance with them. 

TESTIMONY OF A. C. TONNER. 

A. 0. ToNNER sworn and examined. 
By the (Jhaieman : 

Q. Where are you employed ? — A. Chief of appointment division, 
Interior Department. 

The Chairman. I think it would save time to turn the witness over 
to Mr. Ewart, and let him ask the questions. Will you ask the ques- 
tions, Mr. Ewart ? 

By Mr. Ewart. 

Q. Have you the records of the appointment of Mr. Mitchell with 
you? — A. Yes, sir; I anticipated the pur))ose for which I was called 
here and I thought the best way would be to bring the records, and 1 
have them right here. This is only a part of it. 1 have the certifica- 
tion papers here. 

Q. That is what I want to see more specifically. Just be kind 
enough to read that. — A. This is a certification, Civil Service, No. 665. 

(See exhibit A.) 

Q. This appears to be a certificate of a copyist. — A. Yes, sir; if you 
will allow me to state in this connection that upon the request of the 
Commissioner of Pensions there were — if you will hand it to me 1 will 
read directly from the files. Then I will give it to you exactly as we 
be -. ... The request was made for fifteen originally from the grade or 
special examiners. 

Mr. Hatton. On what date? — A. September 17. The request was 
made September 6; the certificates were dated September 17 ; and the 
Commissioner of Pensions, 1 remember, asked for fifteen of the grade 
of copyists which could be taken from the register of special examiners. 
Please note that, for it is an important item. 

Mr. Stone. I do not exactly understand it. — A. I will explain that 
to you. As I stated, the request from the Commissioner ot Pensions 
was for fifteen in the classified service as copyists at $900, to be taken 
from the special examiners' register. Of coarse I do not know what 
the motive existing in the mind of the Commissioner was except by in- 
ference, unless from this higher grade of service from which he wanted 
these people called, he could get a better class of people — for instance 
he will take a $900 copyist and test him in a lower grade until he as- 
certains his ability, and then promote hiui in this special examination 
work. That, I presume, was his motive in it. It is assumable at all 
events. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. I want to understand that. Was the Commissioner in want of 
special examiners at that time? — A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. How many? — A. He was in want at the time he wrote his letter 
of September 6 of fifteen, but he snbseqnently modified it to eleven. 

Q. I understand he called for certifications of ijersous who had passed 
examinations as special examiners, and called for those to fill $900 posi- 
tions as clerks ? — A. In the grade of copyists $900 salary. He asked 
for eleven by a modification of his first order trom the register of those 
who have passed the special examiner's grade. 



122 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

The Chairman. I think the committee wanted to understand that, 
and I did. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. I think I can bring out the question. Was it not 
presumable that the idea of the Commissioner was that he wished a 
high grade or men who would be willing to take these $900 places "? We 
have two or three registers which give men specially fitted for the duties 
of the Pension Bureau, and was it not with that idea of getting men 
from one of these registers who would be willing to take the pay and 
do the work of the lower grade until he was able to test them I 

The Witness. That was the idea I wished to enforce upon you ; that 
by drawing from the special examiners' register, he was getting the 
highest grade of ability. Very often we will call from the copyist reg- 
ister and i)ut in $600 places, as you will see by the civil service rules. 

Mr. BuTTERWORTH. Let me ask a question In that connection. 
Would not that result, then, in giving the higher appointments to those 
who passed examinations for the lower grades of labor? 

The Witness. It might take that direction in time. 

Mr. EooSEVELT. On the contrary it would cause the appointment 
from the higher grades to the lower position. The special pension ex- 
aminer examination is very difficult, and these were certified from that 
examination to a lower place. 

Mr. Stone. Well, go ahead, we understand this. 
By Mr. EwART : 

Q. I find this mark on the papers. Although Mitchell was a certified 
copyist, it seems by that mark, he was to be appointed to a $3,000 po- 
sition. "Appoint Thomas Mitchell, of Connecticut, clerk at $2,000 in 
office of the Secretary of the Interior, to date January 20." — A. I do 
not know anything about this mark. It is without signature and how 
it could have gotten upon it I do not know. Mr. Mitchell never occu- 
pied a $2,000 position. 

Q. Do you know what position he had 1 — A. I think it was a $1,400 
position. He was special examiner in the Pension Office previous to 
his removal. 

Q. I do not find among these ijapers some papers which I thought 
you would have brought. I presume you can give some explanation of 
why they are not here, showing the cause of his removal. — A. There 
was no cause given. We have nothing whatever on file in relation to 
his removal except the mandatory order from the Commissioner and the 
recommendation and indorsement of Mr. Muldrow on the back of it. 

Q. Did you hear a letter read written to Secretary Lamar ? — A. Yes, 
sir; I heard that letter read. 

Q. In which he alleges that to be a removal for personal reasons, not 
political? — A. The letter is the only thing we have in regard to his re- 
moval. We know nothing of any charges at all. 

Q. Do you know of any papers having been recently withdrawn? — 
A. Yes, sir; I think I have a receipt here for several. 

Q. Do you know where these papers are? — ISTo, sir. 

Q. Would it be possible to get those papers ? — A. They may be in 
the possession of Mr. Mitchell or the i)arties who have withdrawn them 
for him. 

Q. Is the receipt in Mr. Mitchell's name? — A. No, sir; the receipt 
for the letters withdrawn is in the name of Miss Shedd, who, I think, is 
a phonographic clerk in the office of the Commissioner of Patents. 

Mr. EwART. Mr. Chairman, we will have to have those ])apers. 

The Witness. They are the legitimate property of Mr. Mitchell, be- 
cause they are not relevant to tlie case. They were letters in relation 
to his re-instatement, as the receipt shows, and thej'^ not being the predi- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGA.TION. 123 

cate of any action taken, he is entitled to them. If Mr. Mitchell had 
been re-instated in ofQce none of those letters could have been with- 
drawn; but under the rule of the of&ce they are allowed to withdraw 
any papers where no action has been predicated upon those papers. 

Q. Can it be possible that the letter of Secretary Lamar or the rea- 
sons assigned for his removal are on Q.\e ! — A. I say frankly the orig- 
inals of the letters you read here ought to have been in this file, but 
previous to last fall there was a rule between my division and the 
Pension Bureau that was very confusing. They held in the Pension 
Office part of the files, and we held in my division part of the files ; 
and I had an order issued by which everything was brought to my 
division. I do not know whether those papers there were the papers 
involved in this receipt or not. If they were, they are in relation to 
his re-in statement, and they are his property under the rule. 

Mr. Hatton. Would not the letter of the Secretary of the Interior 
ordering the dismissal of the man and giving the reasons for his dis- 
missal be on file ? — A. Certainly ; you have just read it : 

September 3, 1887. 
Hon. H. L. MxTLDROW, 

Acting Secretary of the Interior : 
Sir : I have the lienor to recommend most respectfully thiat the services of Mr. 
Thomas Mitchell, as a clerk of class 2 in this Bureau, be dispensed with from and 
after the 30th instant. 

Very respecefuUy, 

John C. Black, 

Commissioner. 
(Indorsed.) Approved: H. L. Muldrov?-, Acting^ Secretary. September 5, 1887. 
Dismissed. 

Q. You know nothing about the records of the Interior Department, 
but know what is the general rule of the Secretary of the Interior to 
keep copies of letters to any outside persons, giving the reasons why a 
particular person is removed"^ — A. There is occasionally some corre- 
spondence between some outside parties in relation to appointments and 
removals and re-in statements that might possibly be upon the private 
files, but ordinarily all that correspondence comes in my custody and 
becomes part of the files ; but as I said before, the originals ought to 
have been in these flies, and perhaps may have been accounted for by 
this receipt, because he was entitled to them. 

Q. When did you say a requisition for this was made? — A. I think 
the requisition was made on September 6. 

Q. When was Mitchell appointed ? — A. He was appointed immedi- 
ately following — wait until I see it — September 23. 

Q. Now, when did you send an order to the Acting Commissioner 
of Pensions for a transfer of the papers on file in that case relating to 
his removal and attemiit to be re-instated ? Do you remember the date ? 
You sent an order signed by yourself to the Acting Commissioner of 
Pensions, requesting that all the papers relating to this particular case, 
where this man attempted to be re-instated to this office, to be trans- 
ferred to your office. — A. I presume I signed such' a letter — I usually 
write no letters myself. 

Q. This is a copy addressed to the assistant chief clerk of the Pension 
Office. 

Sir : Please transfer to the files of this division all papers in the files of your office 
recommending the transfer of Dr. Thomas Mitchell to the Pensiou Office about two 
years ago to some other bureau. 
Very respectfully, 

A. C. Tonner, 
Chief of Appointment Division. 



124 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

A. I have no doubt that letter is correct, never having been re- 
turned. If there had been any return in answer to that, they would 
and should have been in here. 

Q. Is it not the custom at all times to keep these papers until some 
officer sends for them ? — A. Certainly. Charges were never returned 
in regard to the character of the applicant. 

Q. I called on you the other day and asked about this. At that time 
where were these papers ? — A. Which papers °? 

Q. The papers in this case. — A. In my possession. 

Q. jSTo, you told me at the time there was a receipt. — A. This is the 
daily tile. I hold Miss Shedd's receipt. 

One clerk wrote in here : " Ke-instatement in Pension Office in 1887." 
By this he was entitled to 

Q. At the time these fifteen examiners were called for, how many 
examiners were at the Commissioner of Pensions ? — A. I could not tell 
you. 

Q. How many is he entitled to ? — A. Several hundred. One hun- 
dred and fifty in the field ; any more are clerks detailed. 

Mr. BuTTEEWOETH. It ruus into the hundreds. — A. Of course we 
keep watch of that, and do not let them go beyond the limit. I do not 
remember all the data. I would have to be an encyclopedia to do 
that 

Mr. EwART. One hundred and fifty ? — A. These are in the field. I 
believe they are limited to that number. 

Q. You do not know if any other papers were taken from your office, 
if any other papers were removed or not ? — A. No, sir ; I do not. 

Q. You do not examine them closely when they come to you "? — A. iNo, 
sir, I could not take the time to examine the bushels of papers that 
come in there every day. They are distributed by the various clerks. 

Q. Why was the order made to remove these papers and no other 
papers ? — A. I could not tell upon what motive. I could not tell. I 
have no recollection, because I would never have known of this case 
except by its being especially brought out. 

Q. Do you know when he made application for restoration ? — A. Ko, 
sir ; that was in 1887. He was promoted in 1887. 

Q. How long had he been out when he was restored? Do you know 
that ? — A. He was removed in 1887, and made appbcation shortly there- 
after, as I understand it. No, I do not know whether he made applica- 
tion under rule 10. It was required to be within a year, unless a soldier ; 
then under rule 10 as amended. 

Q. Did you say within a year ? — A. He was, in fact, eligible under 
rule 10 for restoration and could have made application under rule 10. 
I do not kuow whether he applied under rule 10, being a soldier and 
eligible. 

Q. The allegation was he had been removed for cause. — A. He could 
not possibly come in possession of any cause from our files, because if 
any charges were on file we would not have permitted him to see them. 

Mr. EwAKT. Suppose I recall the witness at that point and ask why 
he did not make application under the soldier rule. 

Mr. Hatton. In such a case, in such an appointment in the Interior 
Department where a man is removed for cause and applies for re-instate- 
ment, it is customary for the Civil Service Commission to send and as- 
certain what the cause is? 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about that *? — A. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Y ou are not acquainted with it ? 

Mr. BuTTERWORTH. In the order of dismissal which I understand 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 125 

you to hold in your baud, the order for dismissiug Mr. Mitchell, is it 
usual or not wheu a man is dismissed for cause to say so "^ — A. I do not 
know what rule prevailed at that time, but we have a rule in our office 
now that no removal from any bureau shall be entertained Avithout 
cause. We send recommendations back often and ask them to state 
the cause for the recommendation of removal. 

Q. Your recommendations now always declare and state the cause 1 — 
A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Thompson: 

Q. In our transactions with officials, when there has been a request 
for reinstatement, the request has always been made to know as to 
whether there was cause and then we replied requesting you to state 
the facts ? — A. You mean under the meaning of rule 10. Yes, sir; I 
had a little racket with some of you on that subject. I thought you 
were too rigid 

Q. We have reached an understanding upon statements being made? — 
A. Yes, sir. I mean in explanation about rigid that when we referred 
a case under amended rule 10 to the civil service, I held that we meant 
that there were no charges of misconduct or delinquency. 

Q. And insisted we must repeat that °? — A. Yes, sir. I said I did not 
want so much correspondence. I thought I did enough. 

Mr. BuTTEEWORTH. Rule 10 certifies only such facts ? — A. That there 
were no charges for delinquency or misconduct, and I refer the case to 
you. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Where a removal is made by a Commissioner of Pensions, for in- 
stance, do you report that fact to the Civil-Service Commission, that 
cause of removal ? — A. No, sir ; we do not. 

Q. Do you understand the Civil Service Commission has any charge 
over the question of removals'? — A. No, sir; I do not. I do not know 
that the Civil Service Commission can compel an appointing officer to 
keep anybody in the service unless he sees fit to keep them there. 

Q. I do not understand you that on that i)oint is where you had the 
racket 1 — A. No, sir ; under amended rule 10 for re-instatement of sol- 
diers that are eligible for re-appointment, we must state there was no 
misconduct or delinquency. 

Q. Do you think that had anything to do with the appointment of 
Mr. Mitchell? — A. Nothing; we got this return from the Civil Serv- 
ice, taken from the list of eligibles. 

Q. Did you make a selection of Mitchell from those three names ? — A. 
No, sir ; I sent that list directly to the Commissioner of Pensions, and 
he made the selection. 

Q. That is practically all you had to do with it ? — A. In regard to the 
selection, that is all. 

Mr. Andrew. Are you in charge of this case about Mitchell's re-in- 
statement ■? — A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Do you know what salary Mitchell was to receive when ap- 
pointed 1 — A. Not then certainly. Nine hundred dollars I have since 
understood. 

Q. That is what I understood. When was that appointment made? 
— A. On the back, here it is " appointed September 23, 1887." 

Q. Do you know what salary he is receiving now 1 — A. I think $900. 



126 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Mr. EwAET. As a special examiner I — A. He has not passed the pro- 
bationery period yet. 

Mr. Stone. What was the memorandum about $2,000 salary ? — A. 
That memorandum I do not know anything about at all. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Let me ask you here ; this paper certifies three names and one of 
these three appointed was Mr. Mitchell ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was not the highest in percentage ? — A. (taking paper and 
looking over it.) 71, 71, 72. That I take it to be a pretty good grade on 
this examination ; 77, 79, 74, and one at 77. 

Mr. BoATNER. You do not know the way the names were appoint- 
ed ? — A. Here is a list of those selected on the back. They were noted 
on the back from those selected. 

Mr. BuTTERWORTH. He is allowed to exercise his discretion ? — A. 
Most assuredly ; and if the highest rated man was a man he did not 
know anything about, and one near it was a man he did know a good 
deal about, he could exercise his discretion, most assuredly. 

Mr. Hatton. Who selected them after the list was sent in 1 Who 
selected Mr. Mitchell? — A. I could not tell you that; I do not know 
anything about it at all. 

The Chairman. I would suggest to Mr. Bwart that he ought to bring 
witnesses here to state what charges were against this man. 

Mr. EwART. We have brought our witnesses here, but they have not 
brought the records. It seems there are no records here. 

Mr. Andrew. This witness says that he has no knowledge of any 
cause for removal. 

Mr. EwART. I expected this witness to bring certain papers which 
he has not brought. 

The Chairman. You brought the records in your olflce ? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Mr._ Hatton. The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts de- 
cided that this witness did not know anything about it. I Avould like 
to put a member of the Commission on the stand and ask in regard to 
the promotion and rein statement of men who have been dismissed for 
cause. The gentleman from Massachusetts shut me off on this ques- 
tion because he said this witness knew nothing about the Commission, 
and a minute afterwards some member of the committee asked about 
the Commission. I propose to be perfectly fair, and I want to be al- 
lowed to put a member of the Commission on the stand. 

Mr. Andrew. I am willing to admit the distinguished part, but I am 
not willing to admit the declaration as to what the witness knows. I 
asked a question and he said he did not know. 

Mr. Ewart. He said 

Mr. Andrew. I asked if he knew anything about- 



Mr. Hatton. To be fair, I want to put a member of the Commission 
on now. [To Mr. Thompson.] Governor, what is the rule of the Com- 
mission where a man is removed for cause, and the cause is stated, and 
there is an application ^for re-appointment ? Mr. Lyman decided this 
very year that re-in statement inquiries ought to come under rule 10. 

Mr. Thompson. The cause of removals is never reported to the Com- 
mission. If a removal is made, and there is no statement of cause, this 
application is made for re-instatemeut. For example, if the Secretary 
of the Treasury desires to restore a man who has been discharged from 
his service—not a woman, and not in case of an honorably discharged 
soldier, but assuming that the case is without any limit of time — he 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 127 

writes a letter to the Commission, stating lie desires to restore Mr. 
Blank, under rule 10; that Mr. Blank was a clerk in such and such a 
grade, and resigned or removed without cause, affecting his character 
or standing at such and such a time. Sometimes the letters fail to 
make good that statement. There is one case now pending before the 
Commission where there is a conflict between the Secretary of the 
Treasury and the Commission, where he asked for the restoration of a 
lady. We called the attention of the Department to the fact that they 
failed to state in this letter whether she was dismissed for cause. The 
Secretary never answered the letter, and we refused to certify her. 

Q. Is it the duty of the Commission to ascertain whether a man who 
makes application for another place was dismissed for cause, and fi.nd 
out the charges ? — A. No, sir. If he says he was dismissed for cause, 
then we can not certify. If he says not, we are bound to certify him. 
I have certified a man that if I regarded I had the discretion I should 
have protested against his restoration. 

Q. Has there been any rule of the Commission requiring Department 
officers to give the Commission the cause of removal — was there a rule 
of that kind adopted by the Commission? — A. I am not aware of any 
such rule. 

Q. I would like to hear Mr. Lyman or Mr. Roosevelt in that respect. 
— A. I am sure there is not. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. There is no such rule and never has been. 

Mr. Hatton. Was a rule of that kind adopted by the Commission? 

Mr. Thompson. I can not say in regard to rules adopted in the past. 
Now, I would like to explain to the committee while I am on this sub- 
ject, that the Post-Office Department has a regular printed form, audit 
contains these words in stating the cause: that the man was dismissed 
at such a time, though without cause affecting his standing as a citizen. 
Now, several times the mail has brought me letters in which these 
words were stricken out, and it stated the man resigned at such a time. 
I wrote to the Superintendent of the General Railway Mail Service to 
state whether these words were stricken out because the man might 
have resigned under some charge, and they informed me that when they 
struck out these words they meant that the person's resignation was 
voluntary and he was not compelled. We do not wish to have any un- 
necessary correspondence, and since then we understand from the Rail- 
way Mail Service that indicates a resignation ; that where the words 
were stricken out that it meant the person resigned voluntarily and not 
for cause, and we have been very particular in this respect. The Com- 
mission has a casein which a distinguished Republican Senator two or 
three times interested himself, asking the restoration of a man ; there 
was a letter charging he was dismissed for certain acts, and the Secre- 
tary in charge of that Department will say he has no evidence, which 
convinces him he was mistaken in dismissing him and dismissed the 
man unjustly. 

The Chairman. As far as the Mitchell case is concerned, this ques- 
tion can not come in at all for this reason : Supjjose that a man had been 
removed for cause. If it was a year after he had a perfect right to 
apply for examination, and if he passed the examination he had a right 
to be certified by your Commission, no matter what he was discharged 
for. 

The Witness. If he was dismissed for murder we could not question it. 

Q. He had a perfect character, etc."? — A. I think under ordinary . 

Q. As far as the man is concerned is the oixestion whether he was re- 
moved for cause or not. 



128 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATIOlf. 

Mr. Hatton. I am satisfied with this statement. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Governor Thompson, did you ever hear of Mr. Mitchell at the time 
you certified his appointment"? — A. Well, no, sir; I never heard of him 
in my life until I heard of him here. I turn to the minutes and read 
the charges, and I find this entry, which I made myself: " The appeal in 
the case of Mr. Mitchell requesting a re-rating," and the words inserted 
"dismissed." Then on another minute I find 1 recorded this— I will 
state here that usually I dictate the minutes — but I find on another 
date I made this entry: "Examination of Mitchell. Eead his paper 
here this morning. Re-examination of Mitchell granted for reasons 
given in the letter," that he was sick, and not having the proper time. 
That is all I know of Mitchell. The Commissioners do not ordinarily 
know; we have a certification clerk who usually answers these letters. 

Q. I want a statement of fact. Did you ever hear of the fact of his 
having been dismissed from the service ? — A. Never a word. 

Q. Was the Commission — was any member of it to your knowledge — 
approached by any person in Mr. Mitchell's behalf with a view to cer- 
tifying his appointment ? — A. Positively not in my knowledge. I never 
heard his name, and as far as I know, none of my colleagues. 1 know 
they expressed as much surprise as I did, and we had to look up the 
records to see what he was. 

Q. Would the fact of his having been dismissed, even for cause, from 
the service two years and a half before he was certified, or before his 
examination, if you had known it, as a matter of fact influence you in 
any way 1 — A. It could not under the law. The rule is that a man dis- 
missed for cause would not be examined within one year; but this is 
not the question, for the man had been out for two years, and if he 
came up the Commissioners would be required, under the law, to ex- 
amine him. 

Q. I understand that. — A. We had no right to go behind it at all. 

Mr; Oberly. Suppose this man had made a statement in his appli- 
cation paper that he had been removed for cause, and you had known 
that there was cause. Would that in any way affect your determina- 
tion? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I understood you to say you had no right to know whether he was 
removed. — A. I did not mean to express it in this way. In several 
cases men have made statements in answer to question 8: "Have you 
ever been indicted for offenses ?" Sometimes they have said "yes," and 
we have made further investigation. For instance, the other day a man 
said he had been indicted for carrying concealed weapons. The case 
was referred to the Commission, and they ruled out the case of the man 
who was indicted for carrying concealed weapons, because, if that was 
held to be true, a great many of the people in the United States might 
be indicted 

A Voice. South Carolina. 

The Witness. I know it is true down there, and I believe it is true 
somewhere else. 

By Mr. HATTON : 

Q. In the application for re-rating on the ground that he was exam- 
ined when he was physically and mentally demoralized from being sick, 
did he furnish a physician's certificate of that fact ?— A. No, sir ; we did 
not require it. 

Q. You took his word ?— A. Yes, sir. Major Webster remembers the 
circumstance, and the fact he had made an omission of a paper, and the 



CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 129 

man complained he was badly treated, and I confess, when I read the 
letter the other day, I thought his first examination was not a fair test. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. In the application which Mr. Mitchell filed, and all the applica- 
tions filed, is he required to state whether he had been previously in the 
service of the Government ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did his application show he had been dismissed'? — A. I presume 
it did; but I do not recollect the fact now. I can not recall the fact. 

Q. In making the certifications do you examine all these papers be- 
forehand, or simply take the record showing the grade? — A, That cer 
tification that the witness has just shown is a copy of the examination 
paper that goes to the Department of the Interior. These officers — the 
Commissioner of Pensions in this case, and the chief of division, whom 
he consults in these matters, take these papers and read them over. 
The chief of division and head of the office take the papers and read 
them over. I am giving my own experience in the Treasury. 

Q. What I want to get at is this : I make application to day for an 
examination in the civil service. When I state that I have here- 
tofore been in the departmental service and have at a certain time been 
dismissed without stating the cause of dismissal or anything of that 
kind ; now, what effect does that statement have — what purpose does 
it serve ? — A. If we had anything that caused a suspicion that he was a 
man of bad moral character we would make a further investigation. 

Q. At what point would you make this investigation ? — A. If any- 
thing in his answer conveyed the impression he was dismissed on ac- 
count of bad character we would probably investigate it. 

Q. But at what point ? — A. When he made application. 

Q. That would be done before examination? — A. Yes, sir. We have 
applicants who come there with application papers, and where they are 
regular we file them, and where they are irregular we regard them in 
the commission exactly as in the case of a man carrying concealed 
weapons. They are referred to a commission clerk who has full juris- 
diction to act upon it. 

Mr. TONNEK, resumed. 
By Mr. HattoN : 

Q. Is it a general rule when ten or twelve appointments are called 
for in the Pension Bureau do you know who makes the selection ?— A. 
Presumably the chief of the bureau — that is if the request emanates 
from that bureau. 

Q. Is it a general rule when ten or twelve or more are selected for 
the Pension Bureau they are sent to you ? — A. All communications for 
the Civil Service Commission come directly to my room. 

Q. If ten or twelve or more are sent to your room are they gener- 
ally in one handwriting ? — A. That I never observed. 

Q. Will it not be pretty much the case?— A. I do not examine the 
certificates at all. 

Q. Well, say of these ten names ; were all written in the same hand- 
writing except Mr. Mitchell's? Are you familiar with the handwriting 
of the officers of the Interior Department ? — A. No, sir ; not very. 
This indorsement was not made by the civil service. 

The Chairman. I think that the proof should be entirely in this 
line: Whether the Commissioners committed an illegal act in allowing 
this man to be examined, and whether they gave the certification when 
he was not entitled to it. 

Mr. Datton. With all respect to you I would like to submit this 
question to the committee : If the charge is that the Commission by 
3117- — 9 



130 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

manipulation of examination and registry lists and certification lists 
was influenced by some man in the Department who was supposed to 
have nothing to do with the selection of the man at all, is it i^roper for 
us to show that possibly when the list gave as certified ten names and 
one blank, that an officer of the Interior Department filled that blank ? 
I submit that to the committee. 

Mr. EwART. We would like to recall Governor Thompson to ask a 
question in connection with this application. 
The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mr. EwART (to Governor Thompson). You see the application of 
the Civil Service Commission and signed Thomas Mitchell,that in an- 
swer to the question: " Were you ever dismissed for any cause, and if 
so, what cause ? State it in full;" that the answer is: "Dismissed 
United States Pension OfSce, August, 1887." You will note he does 
not answer the question in full, and does not give the cause why he 
was dismissed. Now I want to ask you, Governor Thompson, who ex- 
amines those application papers ? — A. They are examined by the clerks 
in that office. 

Q. By the clerks entirely ? — A. Yes, sir ; and whenever the clerk is 
instructed 

Q. Suppose the answer is made, as in this case, " dismissed United 
States Pension Office, August, 1887," which does not answer the ques- 
tion fully, and does not give the cause of dismissal. Suppose that that 
clerk in the office had informed you that the answer had not been an- 
swered fully, and he was in doubt of the cause he was dismissed for, 
is it the practice of the Commission then to go into an investigation 
to ascertain what the cause ^vas for which that man was dismissed? — 
A. I do not think we would do that. 

Q. I will follow that with this question : Does it not seem to you that 
this is a lame place in the law ? Suppose you found out on examina- 
tion made in the Interior Department that this man had been guilty of 
burglary or raj)e or something of that sort, and was dismissed for cause 
of that kind. Does it not strike you as a lame place in the law ? — A. 
Possibly some injustice might be done by that; but I doubt it very 
much. 

Mr. KoosEVELT. Look at the preceding question. It says : " Not 
dismissed for delinquency or misconduct." 

Mr. EwART. This I understand. These applications as far as the 
Commiss^ioners are concerned are conclusive, and you never go back of 
them ? — A. No, sir ; but wherever we have any ground to believe it is 
not conforming to the truth then we investigate it. 

Q. That is what I wanted to know. In this particular case you took 
no pains to ascertain in regard to it ? — A. Not that I am aware of. 

The Chairman. If the committee desire to know what the j>ractice 
of the Commission is under the rules I have no objection, but we have 
an objection to going into the whole subject. 

Mr. EwART. I would like to say this in explanation of the question I 
asked. It does seem to me if it is the practice of this Commission as 
now stated not to investigate whether or not an applicant for a position 
in the classified service states over his oath why he was dismissed when 
he was dismissed from the bureau — it does seem to me that blame 
would necessarily attach to the Commission for not taking the necessary 
steps to ascertain for what reason that man was dismissed. 

Mr. Lind. That is not a matter to be brought out by testimony. The 
witness in liis api)lication says that he was discharged for no miscon- 
duct or deliu(][uency in office. lie has sworn here he was not dis- 
charged for any cause except being a Kepublican. That is all. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 131 

Mr. EwART. The Commissiouers said that they were satisfied and 
they did uot make any other investigation ; that the very applica- 
tion 

Mr. Lyman. May I say a word here ? 

The Chairman. Is it necessary to take up the time to hear Mr. 
Lyman ? I think it is perfectly clear 

Mr. Lyman. There is only one point. 

The Chairman. What is it, then ? 

Mr. Lyman. The statement has been correctly made that the rules 
provided that where a man has been dismissed for delinquency or mis- 
conduct he was not to be examined within one year thereafter. This 
application is dated more than one year subsequent to his dismissal, 
and the Commission would not inquire into the cause of his dismissal, 
and especially in this case, as he was certified to the same office from 
which ho was dismissed. He is making application to come back to the 
very office from which he was dismissed, and if he was ever certified 
the official records would be there to confirm it. 

Mr. Stone. I will ask you one question while you are on the stand. 
Do you know whether any member of the Commission was ever ap- 
proached by anybody in Mr. Mitchell's interests with a view to urging 
his certification? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did any person approach any member of the Commission within 
your knowledge in Mr. Mitchell's interest ? — A. I will state the fact. 
Mr. Charles E. Mitchell, the Commissioner of Patents, came to me and 
stated that Mr. Thomas Mitchell had said to him that he had taken the 
examination under unfavorable conditions, and had made an appeal 
from that examination ; and that he was fearful that he could not get 
justice from the chief examiner who would review the appeal, as he 
thought the chief examiner had some feeling against him. Commis- 
sioner Mitchell asked me whether I knew anything about it. I said to 
him that I did not know anything about the relations between Mr. 
Thomas Mitchell and the chief examiner, and that furthermore I knew 
the chief examiner well enough to believe that he would give those 
papers the full justice which they deserved if he reviewed the case on 
appeal. Mr. Mitchell, the Commissioner of Patents, said, as nearly as 
I can remember, " I have no favor to ask, and I know it would not be 
granted if I asked it. All I ask is that justice should be done." Are 
you answered? 

Q. And that is the only time he approached you on the subject? — A. 
That is the only time. I saw him but once. 

Q. That is the substance of it — what you said ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that was in reference to his examination ? — A. In reference 
to his appeal; and incidentally the question came up whether under the 
circumstances, if they were correctly stated by Mr. Thomas Mitchell, 
whether he would be entitled to a re-examination. 

TESTIMONY OF J. T. DOYLE— Continued. 
J. T. Doyle recalled and examined. 

By Mr. Ewart : 
Q. From the hasty examination I gave to the eligible list in your 
presence this morning showing the list of those parties who had passed 
the copyist examination^ I noticed there were a large number marked on 
the eligible list from Connecticut. Can you give the number on the 
eligible list in September, 1889?— A. From a casual examination of the 
register thi« morning in your presence 1 notice there were a few— I thiute 



132 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

three or four or five on the male copyist register from Gonuecticut — 
eligible iij^poiutmeuts, places of $900 and less 

Q. In the month of September, 1889"? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Canyon give the committee any idea of the number of eligibles 
from Connecticut on the same list the preceding mouths — say a year 
in-ecediug? — A. I do not know that I could. 

Q. Approximately ? — A. I forget — there were a few names on the 
register. 

Q. As many as twenty-five? — A. From Connecticut on that same 
register ? 

Q. Yes. — A. I doubt whether there were as many as that. 

Q. Twenty ? — A. I think there we^re fewer. 

Q. Will you please explain to the committee, Mr. Doyle, how it was 
when there were fifteen or twenty names directly from Connecticut 
on the eligible list of copyists why the name of Mr. Mitchell, who ap- 
])ears to have passed an examination, should have been certified to the 
Interior Department for appointment ? — A. Mr. Mitchell took the ex- 
amination proper for the ])lace of special examiner of what is known 
as the clerical examining force in the Pension Office. From the begin- 
ning of the examinations in the Pension Office the eligible register for 
special examining officers has been treated as available also for filling 
clerical places in that office without regard to salary. Mr. Mitchell was 
eligible on the special 'registry and could be certified to either a special- 
place or to an ordinary clerical place. 

Q. Could not any of the other parties from Connecticut also have 
been certified as a copyist! — A. Tliey might have been. 

Q. Those who passed long before he had been examined 1 — A. If the 
request from the Department did not state that those particular qualifi- 
cations were disirable. 

Q. They wanted special examiners. Were not there parties on that 
eligible list from Connecticut who had passed the examination for special 
examiners ? — A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. The same examination that Mr. Mitchell passed % — A. I do not 
remember. 

Q. You can give us information on that point by an investigation 1 — 
A. It would not be material since the highest, without regard to State, 
would be certified. 

Q, It would be material on this j)oint. Would it not explain how it 
was Mitchell passed an examination only in the last few months— in Sej)- 
tember — when many others from Connecticut passed the same examina- 
tion ? — A. The time of the examination is not counted in making a cer- 
tification, for you must certify the highest. 

Q. Was he the highest of those parties 1 — A. There were two differ- 
ent registers. The register I si)oke of to you was tbe register of copy- 
ist and those who had taken examination for an ordinary clerical place. 

Mr. Stone. Well, there may have been others from Connecticut on 
each register. That is a fact, is it not 1 — A. They do not come in com- 
petition with the copyist register from Connecticut. 

A VOICE. Gentlemen of the committee, understand that the certifi- 
cation was made from those who had passed the examination as a 
special examiner, and that Mr. Mitchell was the highest. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. Let me state this 

Mr. Stone. He does not say that. Let us see if he says so. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. Let me state right here 

The Chairman. Was it not a fact that these men who were certified 
to the Commissioner of Pensions had passed their examination and 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 133 

were the highest in percentage? — A. They were the highest, and they 
have received that certification. 

Q. If Mr. Mitchell had been certified that he had only received 70 
per cent., and another person had passed say at 75 per cent., the other 
person would have been reported eligible by the Commissioners ? — A. 
Certainly. 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. Had the date of the examination anything to do with the certifi- 
cation? — A. No, sir; because in addition to the order of merit was still 
the apportionment among the States required by the civil service acf. 

Q. And by that provision you say Mr. Mitchell was certified ? — A. 
Certainly. 

By Mr. Boatnee, : 

Q, It has been stated here that the name of Mr. Mitchell, on a list 
which was sent by the Commission to the Department, is written in a 
different handwriting from the other names. — A. Not in the certifica- 
tion made by the Commission. 

The Chairman. Let me call your attention to the fact in regard to 
this action in the Pension Office. What I want to get at is this : The 
man was certified from the Commission to the Department without any 
request from the Department that he should be so certified. — A. There 
was a request from the Department for filling a certain number of va- 
cancies in the clerical examining force, and the names to be certified 
were taken from a list of special examiners, and the name of Mitchell 
at the time was among the three highest on the register in general aver- 
age, and was entitled for that reason to the certification which he re- 
ceived, having regard, as I say, to the apportionment among the States 
according to the population. 

Mr. BoATNER. The reason I asked the question the name was re- 
ported to be in another handwriting. 

The Chairman. That has nothing to do with the civil service. 

By Mr, Oberly : 

Q. There were fifteen places to be filled at the time. How did the 
Commissioner of Pensions make selections for these fifteen places'? 
Upon certifications regularly made out each in its order, or by taking 
the papers to him and submitting them to him in groups of three? — A. 
For the convenience of the Department and for the convenience of the 
Commission they had printed requisitions of the Department for filling 
these places. The papers of a sufficient number of eligibles from the 
special register were taken to the Commissioner of Pensions and handed 
to him in the order of certification, according to the general average, in 
order that he might indicate in advance the selections he desired. 

Q. That is to say, you took the three papers of the eligibles highest 
upon the list and handed them to the Commissioner in that way say- 
ing: " You will please make selection of one of these three ?" — A. Yes, 
sir; and upon his indicating 

Q. And you made a note of that upon the paper, whereupon you took 
the two remaining papers if still entitled to certification, not having re- 
ceived three certifications before, and you added to these the papers of 
the eligible next upon the list in grade, and handed these tliree to the 
Commissioner and directed him to make a selection from these three? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then he having made a selection from these three after he took 



134 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

one of tlie eligibles whose paper has been certified on his demand you 
made a note of that"?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then you took the two remaining pa|)ers and added the papers of 
the fourth eligible to the list and handed the list to him and he made 
another selection? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And yon continued that process until you got to the bottom of the 
list and had filled the fifteen places? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is the modus operandi ? — A. Yes, sir. 
• Q. Let me ask you — then you made up the regular certifications from 
the notes you had taken? — A. Yes, sir; the formal certifications in the 
order of standing and States. 

Q. And the Commissioner of Pensions in making his selections in that 
way for appointment selected Mitchell as one of the persons he had de- 
termined should be appointed ? — A. At that time he did not. He did 
not indicate Mitchell as one of the persons to be selected in that in- 
formal method. 

Q. How, then, and when was Mitchell selected for appointment and 
by whom ? — A. After the selections for appointment had been indicated 
in this informal way the Commissioner of Pensions when the formal 
certifications were made and sent to the Secretary of the Interior, 
the Secretary of the Interior notified the names of the persons selected 
from these certifications, and among the persons thus indicated as 
selected appeared the name of Thomas Mitchell. 

Q. The name of one of the persons selected for appointment by the 
Commissioner of Pensions having been stricken off the list, you added 
the name of Thomas Mitchell, whom he substituted ? — A. It was not 
stricken oft" the list. It did not appear upon the notifications for the 
reason the name of Thomas Mitchell did not appear 

Q. I understood you took back with you a memorandum of the fifteen 
whom the Commissioner of Pensions desired to be put into fifteen va- 
' canciesaud waited until you had ascertained by ofiicial notice whether 
these selections for appointment had been confirmed by the Interior De- 
partment by the appointing officer ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, one of the persons selected by the Commissioner of Pensions, 
who generally does this thing, was omitted by some person in the In- 
terior Department, and the name of Thomas Mitchell substituted by 
some person for his own reason ? — A. That might have been the case. 

Q. The fact is it was stricken off. Some name was omitted from the 
selection made by the Commissioner of Pensions and the name of 
Thomas Mitchell was put in in that way ? — A. Tliat may have been the 
case. I merely know the name of Thomas Mitchell was selected. 

Q. In making out certificates in that way some pressure might have 
been brought in the Interior Department to have a person selected upon 
his merits by the Commissioner 

Mr. Roosevelt. There is no charge against the Commissioner of 
Pensions, as I understand. 

Mr. Obbkly. You must excuse me for going into this thing, but I do 
it in order to make it clear to the committee. 

Mr. BuTTBRWORTH. That indicaces a change may have been made 
in this handwriting, as I understand it. 

Mr. Oberly. This requisition for these fifteen came in on what date ? 
I think it was the Cth of January. 

The Witness. No ; September the 9th. 

Q. When was the examinatiou in Baltimore held ? — A. The 12th of 
August. 



ClVtL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. l35 

Q. That was three days after the requisition for these fifteen "? — A. 
No ; a month before. 

Mr. Obbely. The requisition was made a month before? 

The (Jhaiuman. The requisition was made in September. 

The Witness. The requisition was not made until September. In 
the meantime Mitchell's name had been marked and. had gone on the 
register. 

Mr. Oberly. 1 understand the requisition came in before the exam- 
ination f — A. No; a month afterwards. 

Mr. Thompson. I want the liberty of stating this to the committee : 
The charge is that Mitchell when his friends fonnd that lie was on the 
ineligible list, that he was re-rated and put on the eligible list. I am 
prepared to prove from the official report of the chief examiner, if de- 
sired, that Mitchell's appeal for a re-rating was dismissed ; that practi- 
cally the only thing in the charge these papers prove was not done. 
Mitchell swears to that. Here are the ofiflcial records of the Commis- 
sion, and I can produce the official minutes showi'ug the appeal of Mitch- 
ell for a remarking. 

The Chairman. Ho was allowed a re-examination ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Thereupon the committee took a recess until 2.30 p. m. 

afternoon session. 
The committee met at half past 2 o'clock, pursuant to adjournment. 

TESTIMONY OF CYRUS BUSSEY. 

Cyrus Bussey, sworn and examined. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bwart, will you please ask the questions you 
desire to have answered by this witness? 

Mr. Bwart. Mr. Hatton desires to examine the witness- 
By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. What is your position? — A. Assistant Secretary of the Interior. 

Q. Do you make appointments for the Interior Department, for the 
Pension Office ? — A. In part, I do. 

Q. Did you appoint Mr. Thomas E. Mitchell ?— A. I believe I did. 

Q. Did you know at the .time his name was certified his relative 
standing as a clerk, the rating he had as a clerk ? — A. At the time I 
presume I knew from the report of the Commission. 

Q. How many names were sent to you ? I do not expect an exact 
answer. — A. I can not remember at this time. I think fifteen or twenty 
names. 

Q. Was Mr. Mitchell's name sent to you from the Pension Office ? — 
A. His name was not sent from the Pension Office. The blank was left, 
and the Commissioner wrote me to fill in Mr. Mitchell's name. 

Q. When did you write it? — A. When they sent the papers. 

Q. Do you know why the name was not sent up ; for what reason ? — 
A. Because there was some doubt as to whether he was the party who 
desired to be appointed. 

Q. Having Mr. Mitchell on the eligible list, you desired to have him 
appointed? — A. Mr. Mitchell had been to see me some time before. I 
had looked into the case, and was satisfied that he was an efficient clerk, 
and it is a rule of the Department where we know a person who is effi- 



136 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

cient we would rather give preference to him than to one whom we do 
not know. 

Q. How did you satisfy yourself? — A. From the records in the office. 

Q. Did you know at the time he had been dismissed from the serv- 
ice °? — A. I did not. 

Q. You did not know at the time whether he had been dismissed or 
Boti — A. No, sir. 

Q. Would the records of the Department show whether or not he 
was dismissed for cause? — A. The records, perhaps, in the Pension Office 
show that fact, but at the time in the Interior Department it showed 
that he was an old clerk, and had been an efficient clerk. 

Q. If you had known you would have inquired into the case? — A. I 
would always. 

Q. Did any of your associates in the Interior Department see you in 
regard to the appointment of Mitchell? — A. I do not think they did. 
When Mr. Mitchell first came to me he first wanted a position in the 
Census Office and brought himself to my notice before that, and I at- 
tempted to interest myself in his behalf to get him a place in the Cen- 
sus Office, and told him his name was on the eligible list and as it came 
up from the civil service he would be selected. 

Q. When did you first know Mr. Mitchell? — A. I can not tell you 
that. Some time, two or three mouths, perhaps, prior to his appoint- 
ment. He came frequently to me, as did everybody else who wanted a 
place. 

Q. Who introduced him to you? — A. He introduced himself. 

Q. Did he have a letter to you from anybody ? — A. No, sir ; he did 
not. 

Q. If you had known at the time you made the appointment he had 
been dismissed for cause, would you have appointed him ? — A. I do not 
think I would without knowing the cause of his removal. 

Q. When names were sent up from the Pension Office one on the list 
was left blank? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you wrote Mr. Mitchell's name in? — A. I do not know whether 
I did or somebody else did. The Commissioner of Pensions informed 
me that that blank was left for Mr. Mitchell. 

Q. Have you got that list ? — A. My recollection is I did not write it. 

Q. It was written by somebody in the Interior Department ? — A. I 
think I did not write it. 

Q. Would the papers come directly to you? — A. Yes, sir; and the 
name might have been filled in by my direction, and I think jirobably 
it was. 

Q. You have no idea who probably did write it? — A. I have not. 

Q. Was it anybody outside of your office ? — A. No, sir ; somebody 
connected with the office ; perhaps it was Mr. Allen, the gentleman in 
charge of appointments in the office. 

Q. Do you know any method of obtaining clerks whom they may de- 
sire to obtain after they have i^assed the examination by refusing to 
appoint clerks certified until they get down to his name ? — A. There 
has never been a list of appointments sent up from the Civil Service 
Commission that a name has not been selected to my knowledge. 

Q. Out of three one is taken ? — A. Yes, sir 5 always, and some times 
more. 

Q. And then another name is added to the two rejected and sent to 
you again ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And then they could take also a name again, and reject the other 
two ? — A. Yes, sir. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 137 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. This is the charge : 

That with the knowledge of its members on the 19tli day of September, 1889, 
Thomas Mitchell, of Connecticut, was appointed to a position in the Pension Office 
as a copyist ; that the said Mitchell was on September 30, 1887, dismissed from the 
service for cause ; that the said Mitchell failed in his examination held prior to his 
last appointment; that this failure becoming known to the party desiring his resto- 
ration to the service, his papers were remarked and he was raised from the ineligible 
to the eligible list. 

Do you know anything as to the truth or falsity of that charge? — A. I 
do not. 

Q. You do not know whether Mr. Mitchell was ever on the ineligible 
list or nof? — A. I do not. 

Q. Was any influence from your office that you know of brought to 
bear to have this man Mitchell pass an examination in order that his 
name might be sent up ? — A. I can say positively I never used one 
word of influence with the Oivil Service Commission in connection 
with Mr. Mitchell or any other man since I have been in office, posi- 
tively. 

Q. Do you know of any other influence having been used 1 — A. I do 
not. 

Q. Do yon know of any parties who were desirous of his restoration 
to the service"? — A. I do not. I think Commissioner Mitchell one day 
asked me if there was a prospect there would be a call made by the 
Civil- Service Commission for appointments. I told him 1 did not know 
anything about it, that they were likely to call at any time, but I could 
not tell. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Do you know whether any person, any Commissioner, head of any 
Bureau, or Secretary or Assistant Secretary, has attempted to use any 
influence in any way with the Civil-Service Commission to procure cer- 
tifications? — A. I do not know of any. 

Q. Have you ever advised with any applicants for appointment as to 
any method by which they ought to proceed to procure certifications ? 
— A. I do not remember that 1 ever did. I told parties who have ap- 
plied that they would have to go and take the civil-service examina- 
tion. Nothing beyond that. I have never advised any one how he 
could have his name advanced and how certified, because I never have 
known of any way to have done so. 

Q. That covers my inquiry. [To Mr. Ewart.] That completes this 
charge ? 

Mr. Ewart. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF HAMILTON SHIDY. 

Hamilton Shidy sworn and examined : 
By Mr. Bwart : 

Q. Have you been connected with the Civil-Service Commission in 
the last few years'? — A. I have been secretary of the local examining 
board. 

Q. Where ■?— A. At Milwaukee, Wis. 

Q. How long since ? — A. Until the 1st day of July of the past year, 
1889. 

Q. When did you become secretary f — A. Shortly after the passage 
of the act. I think it was in 1883, and 1 was one of the original ap- 
pointees under the act. 



138 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. And you continued to act as secretary of the local board of the 
Milwaukee post-office until what date! — A. Until the 1st day of July, 
1889. 

Q. By virtue of holding that position as secretary of the board you 
were an officer of the Commission 1 — A. I judge so ; to that extent I 
was. 

Q. What compensation did you receive as acting secretary ? — A. Abuse 
and loss of place. 

Q. 1 did not have reference to that. — A. This is all I received. Noth- 
ing. Not one penny. 

Q. In salary 1 — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you have any position in the office? — A. My official designa- 
tion was superintendent of registered mail. 

Q. What salary did you receive for that ? — A. One thousand three 
hundred dollars. 

Q. Now, Mr. Shidy, I am going to state to you frankly, as it is my 
purpose to do, as suggested by Mr. Boatner, that the questions I am 
going to ask you, if answered in the affirmative, will subject you neces- 
sarily to more or less disgrace and odium, and will, in my opinion, sub- 
ject you to a criminal prosecution, and you may answer them or not as 
you please. 

(Objection was raised to this by Mr. Boatner and other members of 
the committee, and the question was debated.) 

The Chairman. Let the question be asked, and I think this witness 
is fully advised by this time of what he should do. Let him take the 
responsibility of answering. He has a right to decline to answer. 

Mr. EwART. I make the request of the committee that whenever I 
ask a question which, in your judgment, has a tendency to criminate 
the witness let the witness be advised as to his rights. (To the witness.) 
What were your duties as secretary of this examining board ? — A. To 
keep the books and papers of the Commission. 

Q. Did you have entire charge of the books and papers'?— A. Nomi- 
nally I did ; really not. 

Mr. LiND. That is not a complete answer. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Explain what you mean by that. — A. Because the books and 
papers were not always in mv possession or absolutely under my con- 
trol. 

Q. Did you keep the books ? — A. You mean as a book-keeper ? 

Q. Yes.— A. Yes. 

Q. Were entries made from certifications and so on in your hand- 
writing'? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. To that extent the books were under your control "? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know, Mr. Shidy, if there were any irregularities in the 
.vorkings of this office in the year 1888*? — A. Of the Milwaukee office'? 

Q. Yes. — A. I wish you would be more explicit, please, in the scope 
of the question. It seems to me 

Q. I am not going to specify the irregularities now. — A. Just name 
the kind of irregularities, whether you mean special violations of the 
civil-service rules and regulations, or general irregularities. 

Q. I will say eitlier. — A. There were irregularities in the Milwaukee 
post-office. 

Q. In the year 1888 '?— A. I think so. 

Q. Do you know that to be a fact "? — A. If you could specify more par- 
ticularly some irregularity 



CIVIL SERVIOE IKVESTfGATION. 139 

Q. Any class of irregularities, general or special. — A. In a general 
■way, yes. 

Q. Did you report these irregularities to the Civil-Service Commis- 
sion? 

Mr. LiND. That is one of the questions you need not answer unless 
you see fit. 

Mr. Stone. That depends somewhat on the nature of the irregulari- 
ties at least. 

Mr. LiND. That is why I suggested the law should be read to the 
witness. 

The Chairman. Are you ready to answer the question! — A. I want 
you to distinctly understand I am ready to testify of any matter of fact 
I may know of in regard to this matter.^ 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

By Mr. EwART : 

Q. Did you report these irregularities you mention in the workings 
of the oiiice in 1888 to the Civil-Service Commission*? — A. I did not, at 
least I am not aware that I did. 

Q. Was it your duty as an officer of the Commission to make a report 
of these violations or irregularities "? — A. Constructively so. 

Q. Was it not actually so? — A. Now you are bringing in 

Q. Just answer the question. — A. No; it was not actually so. 

Q. Then if there were violations of the law and you were perfectly 
cognizant of that fact, was it not .your duty as an oflticer of the Commis- 
sion to report the facts to the Commission in Washington? — A. It was 
not. But, excuse me, gentlemen, the chief conditions 

Mr. EwART. Make any explanation you want to make. 

The Witness. The line of questions is a narrow one, and confines 
attention only to one part of my duty, whereas my duty was double, 
and in view of the whole situation I will answer according to my judg- 
ment which is correct. I owed a duty to the Milwaukee postmaster as 
well as the Civil Service Commission. They conflicted. I regarded 
my allegiance as paramount to the postmaster; he paid me and the 
Civil Service Commission did not. I simply exiDlain it that 1 may be 
understood. 

Q. You say the postmaster paid you. The Government pays you, of 
course ? — A. That is a question I do not wish to quibble on. 

Q. You say you owed a duty also to the Commission as well as the 
postmaster? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the duty you owed to the Commission ? What do you 
mean by that ? — A. The faithful performance of the duties assigned to 
me. 

Q. Do you not think a faithful j)erforraance of the duties assigned 
you would require you to report to your superior officer the violations 
of law ? — A. 1 do, and would have so reported if there were nothing to 
prevent, if some higher duty did not prevent. 

Q. What higher duty in this particular instance prevented? — A. My 
duty to the postmaster. 

Q. Then the position you take is that being cognizant of these viola- 
tions of law in the workings of this office, you considered you owed 
your first duty to the postmaster and not to the Commission ? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. As clerk, or secretary, rather, of that board, will you please state 
to the committee whether or not at any time while yon were acting as 
secretary you made false certifications upon your records ? — A. That 



140 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

question is not entirely fair. I made certifications which were not ac- 
curate. That is, they did not conform as to date, and they were not iu 
harmony with the civil-service rules ; but that false certilications were 
made, no. 

Q. You answer that emphatically, no ? — A. Yes, sir ; with that under- 
standing. 

Q. State whether or not while acting as secretary of the local examin- 
ing board you ever tortured the records so as to make the list of eligi- 
bles come into line ? — A. That was made part of my duty. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. That was done. 

The Chairman. It was part of your duty. — A. Excuse me 

The Chairman. You do not mean to say it was part of your duty as 
an official of the Civil Service Commission ? — A. Gentlemen, you forget 
my dual character. You are examining me purely as being part of the 
Civil Service Commission, whereas in reality I was a part of the Mil- 
waukee post-office there. 

Mr. Ev^ART. But in making these certifications 

Mr. LiND. It was that part that did the torturing. 

The Chairman. You were really acting as an official of the board ? — 
A. Ko, sir; as an official of the Milwaukee post-office; assuredly as an 
official of the Milwaukee post-office. 

Mr. EwART. When you made this list of eligibles come into line, you 
did that in your capacity as a subordinate of the postmaster, and not 
as an officer of the Copimission ? — A. Assuredly. 

Mr. Stone. Would it not be of importance at this point for the wit- 
ness to explain just what this torturing process was ? 

The Chairman. Let Mr. Ewart get it. 

By Mr. EwART : 

Q. That is a question I was going ask him. Explain to the commit- 
tee what this torturing process meant. You did that as a clerk in the 
office under Postmaster Paul, and not in your capacity as an official of 
the Commission. You became a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ? — 
A. Most unfortunately. 

Q. Please explain what you mean by torturing the record. — A. I 
mean that the records did not conform to the rules and regulations of 
the Civil Service Commission always, and exactly in spirit and in fact; 
that they were not made at the time when they should have been made; 
that the dates were not harmonious with the facts, certain records being 
made after the fact instead of before the fact, as they of right should 
have been made. These were not purely my own acts, although I 
recorded them. 

Q. In other words, Mr. Shidy, you made certifications on your records 
after or before appointments, which ■? — A. They were made in both ways. 
Those that were made before appointments were correctly made, and 
where certification was made after the appointment it was incorrectly 
made. 

Q. That was torturing the records'? — A. I presume that is what you 
mean by that word. 

Q. In other words, it was a false certification ? — A. Ko, not probably 
with the construction which you place on the words " false certification." 
It was a certification and statement of fact, but it was not false except- 
ing in its date and the time at which it was made. 

Q. Now, Mr. Shidy 

Mr. Andrew. Will you give the witness a chance to explain ? 

The Witness. The course of appointment under civil-service rules 
is this : When a vacancy occurred in the office in was the duty of the 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 141 

postmaster under the civil-service rules to notify uie in writing that a 
vacancy existed. I then, as secretary of the board, was required to 
certify the three highest names on the eligible list from which he should 
make a selection. 

The Chairman. What was done in point of facf? — A. In point of 
fact, appointment was made sometimes, and these certifications were 
made to cover appointments previously made. 

The Chairman. Appointments were made before the postmaster noti- 
fied you ? — A. Without notification and without certification. 

The Chairman. And then you made the certification to agree with 
his appointment ? — A. Afterwards 1 made the certification to agree with 
his appointment. He would tell me who had been appointed, and I 
would make the certification to cover the appointment. Sometimes it 
was long after the fact. 

Mr. LiND. Were these appointments made by the postmaster from 
the eligible list invariably ? — A. To places covered by the civil-service 
rules ? 1 think yes. There was a large class of exceptions claimed 

By Mr. EwART : 

Q. Mr. Shidy, did you give Postmaster Paul free access to the list of 
eligibles ? — A. Mr. Paul had free access to the list of eligibles. 

Q. Did he have a right to have free access under the law? — A. No, 
he did not. 

Q. Why did you allow him to have access to those lists ? — A. I was 
not in a position to gainsay him. 

Q. Why? — A. Because I was his subordinate, and my oificial life 
depended purely on his will. 

Q. You knew then that his demand to see these lists of eligibles was 
a violation of law and you could not refuse to allow him access to the 
list because your position was dependent on his pleasure ? — A. I kne»v 
that fact, and I called his attention to it. I gave him the printed cir- 
cular of the Commission, the only copy which I had, and emphaiically 
called his attention to that fact. 

Q. You had control of the entire work of this board, did you not ? — 
A. Only as secretary. 

Q. But it is generally conceded you did all the work. — A, As sec- 
retary. 

Q. Did other members of the board have anything to do with it? — 
A. Assuredly. I was not the Milwaukee board ; 1 .was secretary of 
the board. 

Q. I deem it my duty to caution you in making your answer. The 
question I asked you is, if the other members of the board had anything 
to do with this work. — A. Assuredly. Now, Mr. Ewart by " this work," 
I understand youto mean the civil service work in the Milwaukee post- 
ofiice. You may apply it in some other way, but if you have some special 
meaning — if you mean to keep the records, I keep the records. 

Q. So far as the records were concerned the other members of the 
board had little or nothing to do with them. 

By Mr. Andrew : 

Q. You were a member of the board ? — A. The civil-service board ? 
Assuredly, I was secretary of the board. 

Q. Does that constitute you a member of the board ? 

Mr. Ewart. It makes him an officer of the Civil Service Commission. 

Mr. Andrew. What I wanted to know was whether the secretary of 
the Milwaukee board was a member of the board. 



142 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

A. CertaiDly ; there were three members of the board. They chose 
'oue president and one secretary, and the secretary keeps the minutes. 

Mr. LiND. Were they all employed in the office 1 

A. Of necessity, the regulation being, or part of the law being, that 
they must be Government employes. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. From whom did you hold your commission as secretary ? — A. From 
the Civil Service Commission. 

Q. Going back to the line of investigation before we were interrupted, 
do 1 understand you to say you made these false certifications or that 
you tortured these records because you were compelled to do so "? 

Mr. BoATNER. I would suggest that the witness objected to the use of 
the words "false certifications," and when you put a question- in that 
shape you compel him either to refuse to answer your question or 
evade it. 

Mr. EwAKT. Well, then, I will use the expression " torturing the 
record." 

A. I will take your question again. 

Q. This torturing of the records ; was that done because you felt you 
were obliged to do it? — A. Assuredly. 

Q. At the instance of Postmaster Paul ? — A. Assuredly. 

Q. Your position depended upon it? — A. I had no interest whatever 
in changing any record in the post-of&ce, or in making a certification 
out of time. 

Mr. Andrew. I would like to ask what he means by making certifi- 
cations out of time ; is it not merely technical ? 

The Chairman. He has explained. The certification should precede 
the appointment. I understand that the proceeding was that the post- 
master made the appointment, and after the appointment of these gen- 
tlemen you made the certification ? 

A. The certification followed the appointment, instead of preceding 
it. 

The Chairman. Practically the postmaster was the Civil Service Com- 
mission. 

Mr. Andrew. They were not competitive examinations I 

A. Yes, sir; the results of competitive examinations. 

By Mr. LiND : 

Q. Did these irregularities in dates prejudice other eligibles? Did 
this irregular method of doing what you did prejudice the chances of 
eligibles on your list, if you know?— A. I think not, so far as that fact 
alone is concerned. The mere fact that an entry was made after in- 
stead of before an appointment would not prejudice the condition of 
other eligibles. 

Q. It is your duty — with the permission of the committee ; I do not 
desire to take up the time of this committee unless it is conceded — as I 
understand it you were required under the rules to report their names 
to the postmaster when a vacancy occurred, but instead of doing that, 
he chose a man of his own accord and appointed him, and then applied 
to you for the certification of an eligible covering that identical case 
with the name. JSow, then, did that practically prejudice the cases of 
eligibles on your books who should have received the appointment had 
it been regularly made and reported by you? — A. In some cases it did 
unquestionably, and others not. For ordinarily the names chosen would 
fall Avithiu the three which would have been certified, and in that case 
had it been certified beforehand it could not h ave affected the case at all. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 143 

By Mr. EwART : 

Q. Did you not state in the presence of Mr. Johnson, who was a 
member of the board, and Mr. Paul, the postmaster at Milwaukee, and 
also in the presence of the three Commissioners, that the reason you 
had for changing the grades of some of these applicants was to get 
them out of the way of other men whom the postmaster desired to ap 
X)oint? — A. Giving that as being my reason? 

Q. Did you not state that as a fact ? — A. That being my reason for 
doing so ? 

Q. As being the reason why it was done. 

Mr. BoATNER. Did you state that? — A. I stated that that was the 
reason why it was done, with that understanding. 

By Mr. EwART: 

Q. You stated it in the presence of these commissioners ? — A. That 
my reasons 

Q. That it was your reason and Mr. Paul's ? — A. That is the reason 
it was done ? 

Q. That it was done for the purpose of getting unfortunates out of 
the way of the eligibles. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. It was done under the instruction ot the postmaster ? — A. As- 
suredly. 

Q. He instructed you to do it? — A. I had no possible interest in it. 

Q. He instructed you and you merely carried out his wish ? —A. As- 
suredly so. 

Q. Even if it was against your duty as an official of the Civil Serv- 
ice Commission, when you were instructed by the postmaster wherever 
the two conflicted? — A. Where they conflicted my allegiance was to 
the postmaster. 

Mr. EwART. Whether it was a violation of the law or not in your 
judgment ? — A. Precisely so. I was not making these appointments, 
and I was not responsible for them. You will understand me, gentle- 
men, because I am only one of that board of persons, and this was 
clearly understood between myself and my colleagues. We were iu no 
position to withstand Mr. Paul, and 1 repeatedly brought these matters 
to the attention of Mr. Johnson and the other members of the com- 
mission, the question being not what we could do about it, but what 
we should do about it, and I was asked more than once was I ready to 
fight. It was an absurdity and we could not do it. It was simply to 
let Mr. Paul have his own way. 

Mr. BoATNER. It was simply a question of bread and butter against 
the civil service rales, and the bread and butter prevailed ? — A. Pre- 
cisely. That is the matter in a nutshell. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Did you ever mark up the percentage which different candidates 
had obtained, that is to say, where a man passed only 40 per cent, did 
you mark it up to 70 per cent, in order to make his standing so he could 
be selected ? — A. There were a few instances in which papers were re- 
viewed for the purpose of changing the rating. In some cases they 
were raised, and in one case they were lowered. 

Q. They were raised arbitrarily. Understand what I mean by that. 
Was that done for the purpose of correcting errors or done for the pur- 
pose of putting a man on the eligible list who had no right to obtaiu 



144 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

if? — A. It was done for the purpose of finding a reason for advancing 
the man. 

Q. That is no answer to the question. Was the reviewing done for 
the purpose of having the man marked higher? — A. He was marked 
probably with a biased judgment. The judgment was biased by the 
knowledge that the postmaster wanted that man and wanted him 
badly. 

Mr. BoATNEE.. You considered that case with a decided leaning ? — 
A. That is the size of it, gentlemen. 

The Chairman. Whenever such marking was made it was made at 
the instance of the postmaster *? — A. It was, and with the knowledge 
that he wanted that man and was bound to have him. 
By Mr. EwART : 

Q. That is what is called gerrymandering the list ? — A. That is what 
is alluded to by that term. 

Q. And that is done for the purpose of producing a stuffed t^ertifica- 
tion ? — A. Not exactly that term " stuffed" 

Q. Explain what is meant by stuffed certifications. — A. The stuffing 
was merely padding so as to make the certification seem round and full. 
Gentlemen, you have had your laugh too soon. Names were sometimes 
added to the certification after it was known that the man was- defi- 
nitely and permanently selected and had been at work for some time. 
Now, when that name was selected, it was wholly immaterial what 
names went with him. Those names were simj)ly stuifiug and padding 
to the certification. That is the sense in which that word is used in the 
written i)aper you have before you. 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. You knew when you sent three names that of those three one had 
been already selected and employed ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the other two were sent along as a matter of form. — A. That 
is all. , 

Q. In order to comply with the letter of the law ? — A. Yes, sir. 

By the Chairman : 
' Q. To what extent were the records falsified"? I should call it a falsifi- 
cation of the record ; that is legitimate I should say. In raising the per- 
centage of different persons who were examined, to what extent was 
that done ? Was it done in one case or in two cases, or was it done 
wherever it was required to be done? — A. It was not done as a general 
thing. That remedy was used sj)aringly. 

Q. Was it used whenever necessary to use it ? That is the point. — 
A. I i)resume so. 

Q. Whenever it was necessary to use that remedy it was used *? — A. 
I presume so. 

Q. You know so ? — A. No, I do not know so. Excuse me. Now I 
recollect one case in which an effort was made to liave the grade raised, 
but no pretext could be found in the papers for raising the grade. In 
that case it was not raised, so it would not aijply in every case where it 
might have been desirable to have done so. 

Q. This was an exception?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the only exception ; only that one case? — A. I think so. 

Q. The committee would like to find out how far this matter went, 
whether the postmaster and the Civil Service Commission as repre- 
sented by the three members or officials had that matter in charge, 
whether they evaded the law in every instance where it was necessary 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 145 

to evade it in order to carry oat the will of the postmaster. — A. The 
postmaster had his way in makiDg these ai)poiutments, absolutely. 

Q. With the exception of one case. In one case he did not have his 
way ? — A. In that case he did not, but he got his way in another. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. So it was not a hopeless case then ? — A. I do not want the im- 
l)ressiou to be made here that this class of cases frequently occurred. 
The cases in which there was a change or remai'king of papers were 
few. 

Q. But there were such cases on both sides, in which the rating was 
raised ? — A. And in which it was lowered, but they were not many. It 
was not a general practice. These cases did not require anything of 
the kind. 

Mr. BwART. I will ask you if it is not a fact that the offlcial records 
which you kept as secretary of that board do not show beyond any 
possibility of dispute that the list of eligibles was twisted and garbled 
in almost every conceivable manner in order to ])roduce false certifica- 
tions by which men could be rejected and others appointed who had no 
rightful claims to the chance"? — A. In answering that question, I want 
to make a little statement simply calling attention to the facts. When 
men were found to be at work in the ofQce, and it became necessary 
to cover their appointment by certification, that is to make their ap- 
pointment formal it sometimes was quite difficult to do so. The task 
remained to do it, and to do it in the least objectionable manner. Still, 
it had to be done, for the men were at work. 

Mr. BoATNER. Does it appear they were competent ? 

Mr. Lind, What we want is to know just how you did do it. — A. Un- 
less some special case is brought up 

The Chairman (to Mr. Bwart). Give him a special case. 

The Witness. Sometimes there would not — for instance, if there were 
three names on a given register, none of which would include a chosen 
man, the fourth name on the register being the one chosen, one of those 
names would have to be drox)ped out for some reason. He might be 
marked " objected to." 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Do you recollect the case of a man named Wakeman, who was 
examined April 14, 1887! — A. I remember the name, but not the num- 
bers. 

Q. Do you remember the name of Trump ? — A. Yes, sir; I do. 

Q. Explain how he was gerrymandered. — A. In Mr. Trump's case, as 
far as I or any other member of the Commission is concerned, I do not 
think there was any irregularity at all. This is a typical case. Mr. 
Trump was examined at a certain date. He was put to work before his 
examination papers were marked, before the postmaster knew of 
his 

Q. Let me refresh your recollection here, Mr. Shidy. He was ap- 
pointed March 1, 1888. He was not examined until March 17, not cer- 
tified until April 14. Now, explain how that happens. — A. That happens 
exactly in the manner I was going to state. He was appointed be- 
fore 

Mr. Andrew. Will you please give those dates again"? 

Mr. Ewart. He was appointed March 1 and began work March 
23; he was not examined until the 17th of March, and was not certitied 
until the 14th of April. — A. He was not examined until March 17, My 
3117 10 



146 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

recollection tallies with that, exactly. He was put to work on March 
23. Now, the interval between the 17th and the 23d day of March was 
not sufficient for the board to mark and rate those examination papers. 
Mr. Trump's standing was not distinctly known at that time. Still, he 
was appointed on the 1st day of March, and on the 23d day of March 
he went to work. On the 17th day of March he was examined. His 
record was not known until the 23d of March, but on the 23d day of 
March he was put to work, and reported as having been at work on tbe 
23d. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Did he draw his pay from the 1st of March ? — A. I should 
think so. 

Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, he drew pay from the 1st of 
March? — A. I know the general custom is that appointees are paid 
from the day of appointment. 

Q. Keally he did not go to work until the 23d of March ? — A. He 
was not connected with the office until then. 

Q. Did you certify the papers back to the 1st of March ? — A. I think 
not. I do not know what the certification in that case is. 

Q. Would not the record show that his certification was made either 
on the day after or the day of his appointment? — A. It would. 

Q. Did you not falsify the records as far as that is concerned? — A. 
No, sir; those certifications which I matle where they have dates ap- 
pended to them — I guess all have dates appended — are true dates on 
which I submitted those certifications to the postmaster. The date of 
the appointment would vary in many cases with the date of certifica- 
tion. That is the point of discrepancy between them. If I had falsified 
these dates then there would have been no room for discovery, but I 
put in the correct dates. 

Q. As far as the dates are concerned, you always put the correct 
dates, and if there was any change it was made afterwards by some 
one else? — A. I think there is only one instance in which the date was 
changed, and that was by requirement of the postmaster, in which he 
absolutely insisted on the chauge. 

Q. Who changed it? — A. I changed it. 

Q. Then you changed the date at his request ? — A. Yes ; at his re- • 
quest. 

Q. If he changed the date so that a falsification of the record was 
made, you falsified the record at the request of the postmaster? — A. 
Precisely so. There was no reason why I should do it of my own voli- 
tion in any case. 

By Mr. EwAET : 

Q. I will ask you if it was not often the case that the postmaster 
would cancel certifications ? — A. Sometimes. 

Q. Was it the case that these void certifications were employed and 
used by candidates on the three certifications? — A. I am not sure now, 
but by looking over the certification book I could tell. I do not know 
that certifications were ever made for that purpose. I do not recollect 
that it was. 

Q. You would not answer positively about that? — A. I could not an- 
swer positively. 

Q. Was it the case that men were ever singled out of a higher list 
and certified in a lower list, and that others were certified from a lower 
to a higher witli superior advantages to the favored one ? Was that 
rlone with your assistance ? — A. Men were taken from a higher to -^ 



CIVJL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 147 

lower list. I do not mean to answer your question iu full by this be- 
cause as to their qualifications and requirements I do not know exactly. 

Q. Why were they talien from a higher to a lower list ? — A. The rea- 
son was that the postmaster where he chose such a man — I never asked 
him 

Q. That is another question, where he compelled you to do it. — A. 
I never questioned his choice of a man. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. These questions were furnished you by the Civil Service Commis- 
sion f — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever know of any of your associates to your knowledge 
giving questions out to candidates before examination ? — A. i^ever. If 
they did 1 never knew of any such case. 

Q. Did the postmaster have access to these questions ? — A. No, sir, 
he did not. 

Q. Who kept them *? — A. The questions only reached me as a rule 
the day before the OKamiuation. Sometimes on the very morning of 
1 he examination. They came. there under seal and the seal was not 
broken until in the presence of the class. So these questions were 
never tampered with. 

Q. 1 (lid not know but that the postmaster running the whole Com- 
mission had the papers as well as doing the marking? — A. He did not 
have the papers. 

Mr. LiND. Show how these disclosures came to be made to the Civil 
Service Commission, how the Civil Service Commission got notice of 
this state of aftairs. 

The Witness. Do you ask that now ? 

Mr. EwART. Yes. 

The Witness. In answer to the first question, I remained in the office 
until the 1st day of July, 1889. The Commission made their report 
public, I think it was the 25th day of June, or about that time ; it must 
have been June. 

By Mr. EwJlRT : 

Q. Please state to the committee how those disclosures were brought 
about. — A. I think that would be very competent for the Civil Service 
Commissioners themselves, for they know how they got it. I know I 
did not give it to them ; I did not bring it to their attention. 

Q. You never did call their attention to it at any time f — A. I did 
act. 

Q. To any of these violations of the law ? — A. Now you are pinning 
me down too closely. I hope you gentlemen will understand me when 
I speak I mean to say just what is the fact. After this matter was 
opened uj) and the Commission began to examine into these things 1 
may haye called their attention to some of the irregularities, but what 
I mean is I did not start this investigation or instigate it iu any way. 
That is what 1 mean to say. 

Mr. LiND. You say after the matter was opened up ; then have you 
any knowledge how it was opened up? — A. I can state all I know about 
it. Along in the midsummer of 1888, Mr. Doyle dropped in on me one 
pleasant summer afternoon, I think it was late in June, and asked to 
see the books of the Commission, which he did. I placed them at his 
disposal and helped him all I could. He made some short-hand notes 
as this gentleman is doing, and presently took his departure. His visit 
was followed by a visit some forty or fifty days later by himself and 
Mr. Webster who came as an investigating committee to examine into 



148 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

the conduct of affairs iu the office. I then was quite severely ques- 
tioned. I made the statements which I thinly: are before the committee. 
1 have the impression I stated then just what was the fact. I meant to 
state exactly the facts. 

By the Ohaikman : 

Q. Who made the examination ? — A. Mr. Webster and Mr. Doyle. 
Later on in 1889 the Commission as constituted at present j)aid us a 
visit — Mr. Lyman, Mr. Eoosevelt, and Mr. Thompson ; at that time we 
were submitted to some examination. I do not think my testimony on 
the two occasions conflict at all. I have the impression I told the facts 
in both cases as I meant to do. I was reluctant to testify and it was 
only when 1 was obliged to do so or when I was called upon to do so 
that I did so. I knew the results would be just what they were, and I 
so stated to the Commission. 

Q. What was the result ? — A. The result would be my dismissal. 

Q. Why were you not dismissed iu 1888, then 1 

Mr. Eoosevelt. The reports were not made public. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Mr. Paul knew what you stated ? — A. No, sir : he did not know 
the statement I made then. He stated to me that he had called for a 
copy of my testimony, but I think he never got it. I do not know, for 
he never stated he had got it. Later he probably knew what I had 
testified to. 

Q. Was there any action taken by the Commission in 1888, after you 
had stated substantially what you had stated to the Commission in 
1889, concerning these charges, to your knowledge? — A. I am not 
nware of any. I do not know what was done in that respect. I think 
1 liey considered the testimony which was taken at that time and di- 
gested it, but what they did I do not know ; 1 mean what the Commis- 
sion did. 

Q. Mr. Paul was not investigated, neither was he removed. — A. No; 
he was not. 

Q. And you made exactly the same statement in 1888 that you made 
to-day ? — A. So far as the ground was covered. 

By Mr. Boatnbr : 

Q. The time you were examined by Webster and Doyle is the time 
you refer to ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What time in 1888 °? — A. It must have been either August or Sep- 
tember, probably early in September or late in August. 

Q. You were investigated by the Commission when "? — A. That was 
the investigation by the Commission. The Commission must have 
been there 

Q. You state that after Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster left that the 
Commission came on. How long was that after "? — A, They wefre there, 
I think, in May ; I think it was May the following year. These dates 
can readUy be fixed. 

Mr. EwART. What was the date of the investigation made by Mr. 
Doyle?— A. September 4, 1888. 

Mr. Andrew. One was made in September and the other in May. — 
A. In May, or it might have been June, 1889, the year following. 

By Mr. Boatner : 
Q. How loBig after the second investigation before Mr. Paul was re- 
moved f — A. Mr, Paul was not removed until late in August or Scptcm- 



CIVIL SEiRVICE INVESTIGATTOK 140 

ber. The Commission made a report requesting liis removal, whicb was 
made public, I think, about the 25th day of June. 

Q. How long after that report was made public requesting his re- 
moval before you were removed ? — A. I was removed on the 1st of 
July. 

Q. By whom «— A. By Mr. Paul. 

The Chairman. As soon as these charges became known I — A. Prob- 
ably as soon as they became kuown. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. You do not mean to say that Postmaster Paul did not know of 
your evidence taken before the Commission? — A. I do not know what 
occurred between Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster and Mr. Paul. I know 
Mr. Paul was not present when 1 gave that testimony. 

Q. Do you swear that Mr. Paul knew nothing about it? — A. No, sir, 
I do not know at what time he had knowledge of it. I did not mean 
to intimate that at all. 

Mr. LiND. He simply stated so far as he is concerned he aid not make 
his statement in Mr. Paul's presence. 

Mr. EwAET. He does not pretend to say that Mr. Paul does not 
know. — A. I know I did not know anything about it. 

Q. Are you in Government employ now ? — A. I am. 

Q. What bureau ?— A. In the Census Bureau. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. This examination was made by the three Commissioners, in 1889. 
Were not Mr. Eoosevelt, Governor Thompson, and Mr. Lyman the three 
Commissioners present? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with any of these Commissioners 
before giving testimony in relation to what would be your position if 
you gave the testimony ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was it f — A. The point was brought out that if I should 
testify it would provoke a collision between myself and my superior 
officer. 

Q. Who brought that point out ? — A. I did, I think. 

Q. Did you say you would give this testimony provided you would 
be taken care of? — A. I did make a bargain of that sort. 

Q. State what took place. — A. Such assurances of protection were 
afforded me. 

Q. At your request ? — A. It followed as a corollary or result of what 
I had stated. No, I do not know that I had specially requested it. I 
may have so requested it, but I do not recollect distinctly whether I 
requested protection, but assured the Commission — I think I did not 
request protection, but assured them it was necessary. However, the 
fact remained I was assured protection by the Commission. That I 
should be protected from the result of my testimony. 

Q. Were the Commissioners or any one of them at the time they 
gave you that assurance aware of what your testimony would be"? Had 
you told them what you could prove*? — A. No, I had not. They knew, 
of course, what I had testified to on the former occasion ; that was a 
matter of record. This was subsequent to when I testified before 
Doyle and Webster. 

By Mr. Lind : 
Q. Was the former testimony under oath or merely a statements — 
A. It was a statement. I was not under oath, and yet to me it would 
not have been changed at all had I taken oath. I meant to state the 



150 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATIOK. 

facts just as mucli as I now mean to state the facts and the oath wonld 
have had nothing to do with it. I believe there was no oath adminis- 
tered. 

By the Chairman : * 

Q. How long- were you altogether in this Milwaukee post-office ? — A. 
Thirteen years to the day and hour. 

Q. Always in the same capacity? — A. Noj I served in various 
capacities. 

Q. What was your business before you went in that office ? — A. I was 
a physician. I am educated as a physician. 

Q. After you were discharged from the Milwaukee post-office did you 
come to Washington ? — A. I did. 

Q. In what way did you obtain a position in the Census Office ? — A. 
I obtained a position in the Census Office by the friendly office of the 
Commission. Mr. Eoosevelt particularly being friendly and kind to me 
in that respect. 

Q. What position do you occupy there ? — A. I occupy — I went in as 
the very tail to the kite, at a $720 position in the ninth division of the 
Census Office, my official designation being computer, which ranks 
lower than a copyist. 

Q. What position do you now hold ? — A. It is rather an anomalous 
one. On the records of the Commission I rate as a computer at the pay 
of $900. I have from twenty to twenty-one men under me, some of 
whom are drawing $1,200 and more for aught 1 know to the contrary. 
I am directing the tabulation of statistics of wealth, debts, and taxa- 
tion of cities of 2,500 i^opulation and over, a somewhat important posi- 
tion. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. You said you had assurances of protection. From which one of 
the Commissioners did that come ? — A, Mr. Eoosevelt was the spokes- 
man of the Commission. 

Q. What do you mean by that ? In what manner were you to be pro- 
tected ? Were you to be protected from any prosecution ? — A. Oh, no. 

Q. Were you to be protected from any removal from your position 
you held in the Milwaukee post-office 1 — A. I judge that to be the object 
of the protection as far as they had any power to do anything. 

Q. Did you infer from these assurances that Mr. Roosevelt gave you 
in the presence of the other Commissioners that they would not permit 
you to be removed, or they would take steps to prevent your being re- 
moved from the office as clerk in the Milwaukee post-office? — A. Not 
absolutely ; not that they would not permit me to be removed, because 
I do not think that, that was in their power, but that they would exert 
themselves to prevent my removal. 

Q. You were removed?— A. I was removed. 

Q. Do you know whether they ever exerted themselves to prevent 
your being removed ? — A. I have reasons to think they did. 

Q. What reasons have you assigned ? — A. Because some of them 
have told me so. 

Q. Which one of the Commissioners told you so 1 — A. Mr. Lyman has 
stated that he 

Q. Mr. Eoosevelt never made any such statement to you?— A. He 
might have done so. 

Q. Did he do so ? — A. I do not recollect now. 

Q. Governor Thompson never made any such statement to you, did 
he ? Just answer yes or no. — A. I want to clear my mind. I am in- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 151 

cliiLcd to think Governor Thompson did say sometbing of that kind, 
but just what it is now I am honestly in a cloud about it. 

Q. But you are inclined to think, at any rate, he made that impres- 
sion upon your mind ? — A. However, I have a telegram from the Com- 
mission which perhaps might be of interest. 

The Chaieman. Let it be read. 

The Witness. It does not amount to anything. 

Mr. BoATNER. It is historical, 1 suppose. 

The Witness. That is all. Here is the telegram which reads — it was 
sent to me at 921 Walnut street : 

Commission will bring your matter to attention of proper authorities as soon as 
possible. 

Charles Lyman, 

President. 

and is dated July 3, 1889, which you will see is three days subsequent 
to my removal. I also have a letter of the secretary of the Commis- 
sion from the Commission, which I will read if it is desired. Here is 
the type-written letter of the Commission, under date of August 15, 
addressed to me : 

United States Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C, August 15, 1889. 
Sir : In response to your communication of July 31, stating the circumstances con- 
nected with your service as superintendeut of the registry division of the Milwaukee 
]»()st-offico and yonr dismissal from that office, and asking that the Commission will 
take such action as it may to secure your re-appointmeut to the place from which yon 
were dismissed, I am instructed to state that the Commission will take all proper 
steps in its power to remedy the injustice that has been done you. 
Very respectfully, 

John T. Doyle, 

Secretary. 
Dr. H. Shidy, 

Milwaulcee, Wis. 

Mr. EwAET. The injustice done you was your rem oval? — A. That 
was the i)oint. 

Mr. Stone. It was signed by whom ? — A. The secretary of the Com- 
mission, signed by Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Ewart. The injustice referred to your removal from office by 
Postmaster Paul? — A. That was the injustice. 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. Who were your colleagues on this examining board? — A. Mr. 
Jerome B. Johnston and Mr. Charles Fahsel. 

Q. Were either of these parties examined by the Civil Service Com- 
mission? — A. Yes, sir; they were. 

Q. Did they corroborate your statement? — A. I have not read their 
testimony, but I do not see how they could do otherwise. 

Q. Was either one of them dismissed from the service at the time you 
were ? — A. They were not. 

Q. Are they in the service now ? — A. Mr. Johnston I think is, but 
Mr. Fahsel is not. 

Q. Did they hold a higher or lower position in the service than you 
did ? — A. That is difficult to determine. 

Q. I mean in point of salary. — A. In point of salary, yes. They were 
both heads of divisions and Mr. Johnston was in charge of the mail, and 
as such received a higher salary than I did, who was in charge of the 
registered mail, although I handled a large quantity of very valuable 
matter. 



152 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

The Chairman. How much salary did he receive 1 — A. I think his 
salary was $1,000. 

Mr. Andrew. What was yours? — A. One thousand three hundred 
dollars. 

Mr. EwAET. What cause did Mr. Paul assign for your dismissal ? — 
A. Mr. Paul assigned in his letter to me the jDublication of an article in 
a newspaper. It was not the real cause as understood between him 
and me clearly. It was understood not to be the real cause. 

Mr. LiND. Did you j)ublish the article 1 — A. The article had been 
published; yes, sir. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. You tried to withdraw that article, after writing it, from the print- 
ing office ? — A. At Mr. Paul's request. Mr. Paul told me, " There is no 
use to carry this matter further ; I have written, here is my resigna- 
tion," showing me a paper which I did not examine, " I wish you would 
suppress this matter." I went to the publishing house and made that 
statement to the editor. He was rather loath to give out my manuscript, 
but stepped to the usual little hole in the wall and telephoned, and pres- 
ently returned to me, and of course he did not directly refuse to give 
up my manuscript but he declined to do so, and requested that I allow it 
to remain with him, under the assurance that he would not then publish 
it but he might do so later. It was considered that he simply tabled 
it. I went from his office to the office of another newspaper, to still 
another, and the city editor of that paper brought a copy of the Even- 
ing News, or the Evening Wisconsin it was called, in which it was stated 
in flaming head-lines " Mr. Paul has resigned," " It was stated on the 
authority of Dr. Shidy that Mr. Paul had resigned," and so on. They 
had agreed not half an hour before when he had that conversation at 
the hole in the wall. JSTow, Mr. Paul had made that statement to 
me, and the editor with whom I was in conversation detained me 
there and sent his city editor over to the post office, which was but a 
short distance, to see about Mr. Paul's resignation. He came back and 
reported that Mr. Paul had not resigned, and that he did not care any- 
thing about my publication, and that he would just as soon have it 
published as not, and so on. 1 said, " Mr. Coleman, if Mr. Paul has no 
objection I have no objection, and you can go ahead." The result was 
the article appeared in the newspaper the next morning. That is the 
story of the suppression of this article. 

Q. And the time you attempted to withdraw the letter you thought 
Mr. Paul resigned 1 — A. I was told so. 

Q. You still considered your duty greater to him than you did to the 
public f — A. I did not see there was any object in persecuting him, I 
had no ill feeling toward Mr. Paul, none whatever. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. When was Mr. Paul removed ? — A. He was removed, I think, 
about — I think he hung on until September. 

Q. Before you came to Washington 1 — A. Before I came to Wash- 
ington. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. His resignation was accepted, that of the Milwaukee 
postmaster, Mr. Paul. His dismissal had already been determined 
upon, and he would have been removed if he had not resigned. 

The Chairman. That is immaterial. I want to iind out whether he 
was removed and his successor appointed before you came to Wash- 
ington. — A. Yes, sir. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 153 

Q. How long before? — A. I came to Washington on the 13th day of 
November. 

Q. I am not j)articular about the date at all, I merely wanted to 
know. Did you make an effort to get in the post-office again 1—A. No ; 
I did not. 1 did not ask to be reinstated in the Milwaukee post-office. 

Q. Why not ? — A. Because of the anomalous state of affairs there. 
Mr. Paul had a life-long friend who, although of a different political 
complexion, sustained him, I think, for personal reasons, he being Mr, 
Paul's friend was naturally my enemy. Mr. Paul had further told me 
that he would see to it that I should not hold a position again under 
any Republican administration. He told me in so many words that he 
would persecute me, 

Mr, LiND. Have you got that article here that you sent to the pa- 
per ?-^ A. No ; I have not. It was in reply to an article. I would state 
that Mr. Paul published a personal article about myself. 

Mr. LiND, I do not care about going into this unless the committee 
desires it. 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. Was the successor of Mr. Paul in the post-office a friend of Mr. 
Paul's °? — A, I do not know. I know they were acquainted. 

Q. What influence could Mr, Paul bring to bear on the succeeding 
postmaster which would prevent your being retained in the office or 
being reinstated, — A, The succeeding xiostmaster was absolutely de- 
pendent upon a Congressman for apioointment. The friend of Mr. Paul 
was 

Mr, LiND. What was his name ? — A. Van Schaick. 

Mr, Boatner. The i)ostmaster was connected with a friend of Mr. 
Paul's, and on account of the connection between the three you do not 
think you had any chance? — A. Precisely so. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. In the letter of the Civil Service Commission to you they say, 
'■We will take such action to procure your reappointment in the office 
after you were dismissed." If you had been restored to that office and 
a new postmaster like Mr. Paul had attempted to violate the law and 
asked you to make false certifications, would you consider your duty to 
him higher than your duty to the Commission, and gone on doing as 
you did before? — A. Now you are inquiring into a state of facts that are 
simply suppositions, cases that you may imagine. Is this a question 
of fact I 

Q, I will ask another question. — A. I presume I might imagine my- 
self under these conditions and I will answer this gentleman fairly and 
squarely. After the lapse of many months and after time for amply 
considering my course and conduct in the matter I do not see I could 
have done one whit different from what I did do and if I was placed 
under the identical circumstances I would pursue a similar line of con- 
duct. 

Q, If you had been restored and the new postmaster had asked you to 
make false certifications, you would have gone on making them? — A. If 
the conditions were the same as before the results would have been 
the same. 

Q. After securing the removal of Mr. Paul through the Commission 
you would have gone on and made up a case against the next post- 
master in the same way ? — A. I did not secure Mr. Paul's removal. 

Q. It was partly done through your evidence. — A. My evidence was 
simply the facts. I had nothing to do with that. I was not responsi- 



154 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

ble for the fact. The facts probably removed Mr. Paul. I did not 
make the facts. 

Q. As a civil service reformer and an officer of the Board 

The Chairman. He does not say that he was a civil service reformer. 

Mr. Hatton. Well, as a former officer of the Board — I do not mean 
to reflect on the Board 

Mr. BoATNEE.. You mean to say had you been retained in your place 
that you would have repeated the violation of the civil service law 
which you have stated that you have been guilty of? — A. That would 
depend upon the conditions ; if they would not be the same it might 
not be necessary to repeat it. I served under Mr. Payne and he,did 
not compel me to do so. 

The Chairman. If the conditions were the same you would see noth- 
ing wrong? — A. I have not stated that I did not see anything wrong. 
I think my appreciation of right and wrong is equal to most people. I 
have stated, gentlemen, that if the conditions were the same the results 
would be the same. I can not see why like causes should not produce 
like results. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Did you report to Commissioners Lyman, Edgerton, and Oberly 
any violation of the postmaster in which you assisted him ? Did you 
ever make any report? — A. I did not start the investigation. 

Q. You stated one reason why you did not was that this was a mat- 
ter of bread and butter to you. 

Mr. BoATNER. He did not say that, it was myself. 

Mr. Hatton. He answered you that it was practically so. Could not 
you, as a sworn officer of the Commission, have taken the chances on one 
sandwich and sent these Commissioners word without Mr. Paul's knowl- 
edge that he was violating the civil service law? Could you not have 
sent word to the Commission here ; had not you many opportunities to 
do that ? — A. I was not exactly disposed to act on that line, although you 
may think I have done worse. In the first place, Mr. Hatton, you must 
realize and understand that when these violations of law began they 
were a very small thing, and if at once I had withstood them, and if I 
had called the attention of the Commission to them, it would have been 
to bring down a rebuke, and the Commission would have admonished 
Mr. Paul to adhere more strictly to the law, and he would have turned 
on me for calling the attention of the Commission to these matters. 
Having condoned one of them it is a very easy matter to condone 
another and another, and by and by there comes to be a mountain. I 
state the matter fairly. 

The Chairman. You condoned his offense ? 

A. Precisely so, because 

By Mr. Hatton: 

Q. What were Mr. Paul's politics ? — A. He was appointed a Demo- 
crat. 

Q. What are your politics ? — A. I am a Eepublican. 

Q. If it was a matter of bread and butter under your present condi- 
tions and the Superintendent of the Census should ask you to make 
false register and false returns, would you comply with him; would you 
consider your duty greater to the Superintendent of Census than it is 
to the Commission and President 

The Witness. And the public. The Superintendent of Census knows 
how he wants the reports. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 155 

Q. If you were satisfied in your mind you were doing an im- 
proper 

Mr. BoATNER. Let him answer. 

The Witness. If the Superintendent of Census wants a false report 
he knows that matter. I am his servant, and he can direct me in 
these matters and in regard to all matters. In regard to the post-ofiice 
aftairs, Mr. Paul was my superior officer, and directed me. In regard 
to the Civil Service Commission matters, he ought not to have been my 
superior or directed me in any way; but unfortunately it was impossible 
to separate the two IPs, I being one and the same individual. 

Q. But you know the law gives the Civil Service Commission, in 
which you were an officer, the right to come in and investigate the 
affairs of the post-office, and to that extent made the Commission supe- 
rior to the postmaster. — A. Did they do it "? 

Q. Not through any active agency on your part. — A. If I had insti- 
gated this movement and had brought charges while they were small 
and inconsequential, would not I have been s'*igmatized as conspiring 
against my superior officer, and would not it have been alleged that 
because Mr. Paul was a Democrat and I was a Republican, therefore I 
was trying to get a Democrat out of office, or some such reason as that 1 
I had no ill-will against Mr. Paul. I did not try to get him out of office, 
nor do I. What I testify to is simply fact. 

Q. Understand that I was assuming that the Commission is above 
politics, and of course your political influence and his political influence 
ought to have nothing to do witli that. — A. I think not. 

Q. You never reported to Mr. Lyman any of these false certifications 
or any violation of law ?— A. I think I have answered that question be- 
fore. 

Q. Did not yon consider it your duty to report these violations of law 
to Mr. Lyman so that he should have an opportunity to make an in- 
vestigation of the case in order, if this man had violated his duty, to 
dismiss him ? — ^A. A report to Mr. Lyman would have been a report to 
the Commission. I do not distinguish between the two. I did not re- 
port to the Commission because I was not in a position to do so satis- 
factorily. 

By Mr. Oberly : 

Q. Why were you not ? — A. Because my position was wholly depend- 
ent upon pleasing my superior officer. 

Q. I wish to know why you believe that to be the fact? — A. Events 
have borne me out. 

Q. Did it ever occur to you that you should have informed the Com- 
mission that these abuses were going on; that you were in danger of 
removal; that an investigation and ascertaining of facts might be made 
without implicating you, and would show you were anxious to do your 
duty? — A. No, I do not think that state of aflairs presented itself to 
me as being in conformity with the facts ; in fact I know it did not. 
The letter which I wrote to the Commission very hastily, after Mr. Doyle 
and Mr. Webster's examination there, on the spur of the moment and 
while suffering from considerable excitement, being afraid of the course 
which would then be taken — I sat down and wrote a letter, in which I 
summed up the condition of affairs, and I stated, I think, there were 
but three courses open to me ; the first was to call the attention of the 
Commission to the existing state of affairs and to take the consequences; 
the second was to resign and drop the load ; the third was to wait until 
the Commission, through its own motion, should discover the fact and 



156 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

then simply to let them take all the responsiMlity of the result. The 
latter was the course I took. 

Mr. LiND. Did you mail that letter to the Commission I 

A. No, sir ; I gave it to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster during the exam- 
ination. I think it was the final act of that afternoon. That was the 
first examination. I think it is part of the record here. 

Mr. Andrew. Who were the Commissioners then *? 

A. Mr. Oberly, Mr. Lyman, and Mr. Edgerton. 

Mr. LiND. Is that letter in evidence ? 

The Chairman. Do you know where this letter is ? 

The Witness. The Commission has that letter. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. It is on the table. 

Mr. Hatton. We will wait for that. In the meantime I would like 
to hear one question. You stated your construction of your duty duty 
as an officer 

The Witness. (Taking up paper, see Exhibit B.) This is marked Ex- 
hibit R. Communication to the Civil Service Commission from Hamil- 
ton Shidy, secretary of the board of examiners of the post-office at 
Milwaukee, and dated September 10, 18S8, which is also the date of 
my letter. 

Mr. Oberly. This is an exhibit ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Oberly. Of what^ 

The Witness. I think it is part of the evidence. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. It is an exhibit to the report of last July. 

Mr, Oberly. What is the date of the report which Mr. Webster made 
of which this is an exhibit! 

The Chairman. He is referring to a letter sent to the Commission 
in September, 1888. 

Mr. Oberly. He means an exhibit to something. 

Mr. LiND. This witness is entitled to have this in the record. 

The Witness. This is a letter which, as I have stated, I wrote after 
the testimony was taken in the examination conducted by Mr. Doyle 
and Mr. Webster. The examination had closed late one afternoon. I 
went home feeling ill at ease at the turn which affairs had taken. I 
rose early the next morning, it being understood between Mr. Doyle 
and Mr. Webster that they were going on the 1 L o'clock train and I 
must be at my desk at work before 8 o'clock in the morning, so I sat 
down and rapidly dashed off this statement, which I had not occasion 
to read until I read it before that committee. 

Mr. Andrew. What committee? — A. Messrs. Doyle and Webster, 
who were then the investigating committee, and I put this in their hand 
as an explanation how it came that I allowed things to be in the con- 
dition in which they were. I shall simply read an extract from this : 

Three courses ouly were open to nie under the circninstances — 

(1) To resign my position on the board. This I talked of on several occasions 
with Mr. Johnson, president of board, and even wrote out my resignation, bnt it 
was withheld, as we both thought it wonhl prejudice my position in the office, as of 
course I would be asked for reasons. 

(2) To call the attention of the Civil Service Commission to the manner in which 
the rnlcs were being violated. This would have been to invite an investigation and 
conflict with the postmaster, with loss of place. 

(;i) To lot matters take their course until such time as the Commission should dis- 
cover, of its own motion, the existence of irregularities and deal with them as they 
saw lit. This I have done! I have been loyal to my chief and have done the best I 
was permitted to do for the Commission, being heartily in sympathy with the reform 
movement. 

Now, gentlemen, you may laugh, but it is a fact nevertheless. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 157 

Mr. Oberly. What is the date of that letter? 

The Witness. It is dated the 10th day of September, 1888. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. I would like to ask a question or two, in view of getting matters 
that have been traveled over in a scattered way together again. How 
many employes of the Government are at Milwaukee? — A. Do you 
refer only to the post-office ? 

Q. Well, altogether. — A. I can not say. 

Q. Were there any persons employed in the Government service at 
Milwaukee other than those connected with the post-office'? — A. I think 
so, although 1 would be at a loss to specify. Yes, assuredly ; there is the 
custom-house; at present they collect internal revenue at Milwaukee. 

Q. This board, of which you were secretary, was composed exclusively 
of ])ersons connected with the post-office ? — A. It was for the greater 
part of the time. In its incipiency there was a member, a Dr. Kane, 
who was connected with one of the departments, I thjnk the internal- 
revenue department. The requireinenfc was that tliey should be Gov- 
ernment employes. 

Q. From whom did you receive your appointment as secretary of this 
board ; from the Civil Service Commission f — A. From the Civil Serv- 
ice Commission. 

Q. And you held you had a duty then to the Civil Service Commis- 
sion distinct from that you had to the postmaster ? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did you take oath as a member of this board I — A. I think not ; in 
fact, I understand not. According to my memory it is not required. 
It is not likely there was any set oath. I am informed a set oath is not 
required, so I presume I did not take any oath. 

Mr. Oberly. Is not the performance of the duty of the secretary of 
a board of examiners made by the civil service law part of his official 
duty ; does not the discharge of these duties therefore come under your 
oath to do that ? 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. I was going to ask that question, but you can answer it now. — A. 
I think there is a provision in the civil service law — you will not be 
surprised if I am not altogether familiar with the manifold provisions 
of the law — I think there is a provision making it a part of the public 
work to be done. I believe that to be so. 

Q. In certifying persons for appointment as being on the eligible list 
who were not on it, in changing the grades of persons who were on the 
list by increasing some and diminishing that of others, did you under- 
stand that it was a violation of your obligation, of your duty as a public 
officer f — A. My duty was twofold. If I could have separated the part 
of me which was civil service officer from the part of me which was 
post office attache I would not have had any difficulty whatever in 
discriminating between the two, but unfortunately I could not. 

Q. Do you mean to say that you did not regard your conduct as an 
official wrong and involving any moral turpitude because a different 
course might have resulted in your removal from office? — A. Because, 
considering the situation in its entirety, taking all things into consid- 
eration, that was right for me which was not right and proper if there 
was only one cause. I have been taught that of two evils to choose the 
least, which I believe is a correct lioe of conduct. 

Q. I think we understand fhat. IsTow you have explained this whole 
business, and your connection with the present Civil Service Commis- 
sion is as you have stated. — A. Yes, sir. 



158 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Soon after your removal do I understand you to say that these 
gentlemen with full knowledge of your conduct recommended you for 
appointment in another branch of the service of the Government ? — A. 
No; knowing I had been a faithful servant in the place in which I had 
been placed, no charge being against me, and it can be testified to that 
in thirteen years I have handled large sums of money, and I am here 
and not in Canada. 

Q. Did you go into your present employment under civil service rules 
and regulations ? — A. I suppose I did. That is, in the early stages of 
the process I suppose I did, but I learned since that branch of the civil 
service is not under what is known as the regular civil-service rules. 

Q. In other words, the ap])ointment can be made without civil serv- 
ice examination and certification under the provisions of the law? — A. 
They have a certain form of examination over there which probably 
tbey regard as a substitute and equivalent to the civil service exami- 
nation." It is not the regular civil service examination. 1 was required 
to take such au examination, and when I took it I supposed I was con- 
forming fully to the civil service law. 

Q. Is it a fact that Mr. Roosevelt or either of the Commissioners went 
to the Superintendent of the Census, or to whoever makes these appoint- 
ments, and personally interviewed him in your .behalf to your knowl- 
edge 1 — A. To my knowledge, no ; because I have no knowledge of that 
fact whatever. 

Q. What is your understanding? — A. I understand that. 

The Chairman. You will see, Mr. Stone, it is a fact that Mr. Eoose- 
velt got this appointment acting for the Commission. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. What were the politics of Mr. Johnston ? — A. He is a Republican. 

Q. What was your other associate ? — A. Mr. Fahsel ? 

Q. What were his politics ? — A. I do not know. He was appointed 
by Mr. Paul, so I judge he was a Democrat. 

Q. He is not now in the service 1 — A. No, sir. 

Q. Mr. Paul is no longer in the service? — No, sir. 

Q. He was a Democrat '? — A. He was a Democrat ; at least he was 
appointed as a Democrat. 

Q. Is Mr. Johnson still in the service?— A. I believe he is; I think 
he is; I may say I know he is. 

Q. What did I understand you to say the place is you are filling now 
in the Census Office? — A. My position by official designation there is 
a copyist. 

Mr. BoATNER. I thought you stated it was a computer. — A. I was 
appointed as a computer, which I think is a less grade than a copyist. 
I have been advanced, and I now get $900. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Did you say you have now under you fifteen or twenty men ? — A. 
I have, but that does not appear in my official status. 

Q. And you say many are receiving a larger salary than you? — A. 
Many are; the most of them, I think. 

Q. What are you engaged in doing? — A. Tabulating statistics of 
wealth, debt, and taxation of cities of 2,500 population and over. 

Q. You are comi)uting or tabulating statistics of taxation ? — A. Yes, 
sir; and of wealth, debt, and taxation, referring to the financial 

Q. You are in charge of that division ?^— A. I am not in charge of the 
division, because, understand me, Mr. Copelar.d is in charge of the divis- 
ion. In the division of wealth, etc., I take the place of Mr. Copelaud, 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 159 

in charge of these statistics, Mr. Copeland being in charge of the divis- 
ion. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. You have stated that yon have charge of some fifteen or twenty 
men, what are your duties'? — A. My duties are to outline the work for 
them to break the way before them and see they do as I sa3' shall be 
done. There can no work at present proceed until I map it out. I 
break the way for their work. 

Q. The men who do the work you designate are paid in some instances 
$300 per annum more than you receive at present? — A. Yes, sir; I 
have stated that. Understand I am not complaining at all, but that is 
simply the fact. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. After you were turned out of the Milwaukee post-office did you ever 
make application to the Civil Service Commission for a position ? — A. 
I requested them to do what they could for me. 

Q. I know that, but what I mean is by examination ? — A. To take the 
regular civil-service examination. 

Q. Yes.— A. No. 

Q. Why I — A. Because I knew there were a great multitude who 
were doing that then, so that I would have a very small chance, a drop 
in the bucket. 

Q. Are you familiar enough with the rules of the Commission to say 
whether or not after having been dismissed from the service you could 
have been so certified by the Commission °! — A. I see no reason why I 
should not have been certified by the Civil Service Commission. When 
I made application for this place I stated fully and explicitly the fact 
that my connection had been severed from the service. 1 filled out a 
regular application blank. 

Mr. Andrew. This is a more argumentative question. 

The Chairman. In this way the question comes jiroperly that the 
witness is asked whether he did not make application, and whether for 
whatever cause he had been discharged 

Mr. BoATNER. He has stated it. The question is whether his char- 
acter is good enough to go through, that is a question of opinion. It is 
unfair to ask a man to stultify himself. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Did this examination held by Messrs. Doyle and Webster— this was 
in September, 1888, 1 believe you said ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know anything about when these gentlemen made their 
report to the Commission? — A. No, I do not. 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. When Mr. Lyman, Mr. Eoosevelt, and myself called on you at 
your office at Milwaukee and began to inquire of you about these thiugs, 
did you or not beg to be excused from saying anything ? — A. I did ; I 
stated the result would be disastrous to me. 

Q. These assurances Mr. Eoosevelt gave, which Mr. Lyman and ray- 
self assented to, was it not that if you would tell us frankly the whole 
truth about this matter we would protect you as far as we could from 
being dismissed for testifying if you told the truth. — A. That was the 
substance of our first conversation. 

Q. Did I not at that time somewhat severely upbraid you for this 
misconduct you had been guilty of? — A. You asked me some very 
pointed questions, I know. 



160 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Did you not express contritiou and repentance and say to tbe 
Oommissiou you had been taught a severe lesson and in future nothing 
of this kind would occur'? — A. I do not remember making that state- 
ment, although I might have made it ; I do not remember it. 

Q. Did you not send me after 1 had left Milwaukee a newspaper in 
which there was high praise of you by the former postmaster, Mr. 
Payne !— A. No, I think flot. 

Q. You recollect that newspaper ?— A. Yes, sir. Your question was 
simply — I brought that paper here, here it is. Do you wish the paper 
read ? 

Q. Before your appointoient to the Census Office you submitted to us 
as evidence a fact that you had the confidence of your superior officer, 
the postmaster, Mr. Payne, the Republican incumbent, who preceded 
Mr. Paul?— A. I did. 

Mr. KoosEVELT. Will you submit the newspaper marked in evidence 
here ? — A. I have the paper here. 

Mr. Thompson. I shall read that portion which Mr. Payne testi- 
fied to his character and capacity. 

[From Yenowin's Sunday News, Milwaukee, Sunday, May 31, 1885.] 
THE FOURTH DIVISIOX. 

The registry department was separated from tlie money department in 1878, and is 
in charge of Dr. Hamilton Shidy. This branch is rapidly gaining in public favor, 
as will be seen by its great increase. In 1876 but 45,204 pieces were handled, while 
in 1884 the number reached 266,995. When we consider that 'every one of these let- 
ters or packages is of more or less value, the great importance of this department 
will be understood. To Dr. Shidy is due the credit of having originated the idea of 
simplifying the method of doing the registry business by the use of the postal card. 
Its adoption by the Department was earnestly urged by me, and it has resulted in a 
great saving of time and labor, and consequently improving the service throughout 
the entire country. 

A. This copy is dated May 31, 1885. It shows the farewell address 
of Mr. Payne on his turning over the office to Mr. Paul. 

By Mr. Ewaet : 

Q. What is the date of that paper ?— A. Sunday, May 31, 1885. 

Q. Before you were engaged in the certification business? — A. Yes, 
sir. No, sir; it was not, for the civil-service rules weut into effect, if I 
remember, about the spring of 1883. 

The Chairman. That was before any irregularities were committed '? 
— A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. Did you not tell the Commission when we called your attention 
to this violation of law which we regarded as very gross, did you not 
tell the Commission that you had done it under duress ? — A. I did. 

Q. And the duress was that of the postmaster? — A. I did. 

Q. Did you not then, in regard to this re-marking — I beg you now to 
listen carefully to this question — state that you had never re-marked a 
paper or marked it up where you did not feel there was a justification 
in marking it up ? Just answer this, — A. I so stated. 

Q. That you never marked a man up that you did not believe, when 
the review was made, that you had sufficient justification for re-marking; 
and where a review was suggested by the postmaster you had never 
marked a man higher than, in your deliberate judgment, he was entitled 
to? — A. Not higher than we could allow hiiu properly. As a rule those 
cases were only a fraction of a per cent., just enough to change the 
relative standing of two person^. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 161 

By the Chaieman : 
Q. You stated that in one or two instances the marking had been 
made, that the rate of per cent, had been raised? — A. I state so now. I 
refer to that that there were changes which were not great, as from 40 
to 70, but they were generally only a minor chaiage in marking, enough 
to change the relative position of two persons. 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. You stated that day you had never marked a paper that you did 
not conscientiously believe, on a review, was entitled to be marked up. 
Did you or did you not say that ? — A. I do not remember positively. I 
know what the effect was, that that marking these papers sometimes 
caused 

Q. I just want you to answer the question. Did you not tell the Com- 
mission while Mr. Paul sometimes called upon the board to review ques- 
tions, you had never marked a man higher than you lionestly believed 
on a second review he was entitled to ? — A. I do not remember, but in 
point of fact it is so whether I did or did not. 

Q. Did not you distinctly say to the Commission you had admitted 
your faults, your dereliction of duty, and that you deeply regretted it, 
and that it should not occur again if you remained in the service ? — A. 
I did state to the Commission that I admitted the fault, and I accepted 
the verdict of censure which they passed upon me as being just from 
their stand-point. 

Q. Did you not tell the Commission in some of these matters where 
Mr. Paul had ordered you to do things he stated that to be his opinion 
of the law, and there was a conflict of opinion between you and Mr. 
Paul, and you yielded to him, being tlie inferior officer, and it was done 
upon the responsibility that his construction of the law was right *? — 
A. He did in some instances ; many instances. 

Q. Did you not tell the Commission that in a decision where you dif- 
fered that Mr. Paul, the postmaster, said, " I have the right of the law 
to do thus and so," and that while you were disposed to differ from him 
in opinion that it was only upon such questions that the postmaster 
insisted and you yielded your judgment to his? — A. That unquestion- 
ably covers some cases. 

Q. I only wanted to know whether you did not tell us that -, that 
where you and Mr. Paul came in conflict in regard to the construction 
of the meaning as it sometimes occurred, you gave your construction 
and Mr. Paul his, and that you yielded your judgment to his? — A. I 
have never tried in any way to conceal the state of affairs whatever 
here. I simply did not bring up the law 

Mr. BoATNER. The question is about fact. Did you tell him these 
things or not ? 

By Mr. Thompson. 

Q. Did not you tell the Commission, at the time you pleaded for 
mercy, that you were a poor man with a wife and children, absolutely 
dependent upon your salary for support ? — A. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Q. And did you not, in stating these facts, admit your errors and say 
that if you were continued in office it would not occur again ; that you 
had consulted your colleagues of the Board, and they knew what the 
irregularities and the derelictions that you committed were ? — A. What- 
ever was known to me was known to the members of the Board — any- 
thing of importance. There may have been some little trifle that 
occurred which was not known, but there was nothing of importance 
3117 11 



162 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

which was not known. If I thought there was anything of importance 
that was not known to the other members of the board I reported it to 
the board, if any discussions especially between myself and Mr. John- 
ston, until it became to be monotonous. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Did you tell the Commissioners, at that time that you considered 
the matter, that you were acting in two capacities, and under the same 
conditions you were then acting you would act in the same manner 
again *? — A. I do not remember that I made that statement. 

Q. You made a statement here that you would consider under the 
same conditions, that under the same conditions you would act exactly 
as you did act ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you state that to the Commissioners at that time ?— A. I do 
not remember that I stated that ; I do not remember that that phase 
of it came up at all. 

Q. Did not you acknowledge you did wrong, and that it never would 
happen again?— A. I acknowledged I did wrong, just as I now do. 

Q. Did you not tell the Commissioners that you would never be guilty 
of such an act again? — A. I probably did ; I do not recollect that par- 
ticular statement. I do not know, yet I might have said so. I do not 
seem to recollect at present that I did make use of that particular ex- 
pression, but that was the frame of mind in which I was in at that 
time. 

Q. You are positive you never stated to those gentlemen that if you 
were called to a public position again under the same conditions as 
those, you would do the same as you had then acted ? — A. I do not re- 
member that phase was brought up at all. I do not recollect having 
made any such statement as that. I do not recollect that particular 
question was brought before me; still, it may have been. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt. Are you not positive you never said anything of 
the kind ? — A. No, I do not recollect that matter positively ; from the 
fact there is a blank in my mind in regard to it I should think I had 
not made the statement, but it is hard to state in the negative. I sim- 
ply do not know. It may come to me. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Were you a member of the Board when Henry Payne was post- 
master 1 — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He is the author of the complimentary notice about you which 
has been read. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you ever obliged by him to make false certifications ? — A. 
No, sir. 

Mr. EviTAET. Before the adjournment of the committee, I would put 
in evidence and read to the committee the report made to the Commis- 
sioners by Messrs. Webster and Doyle, especially one part of the re- 
port. 

The Chairman. You can put it in evidence, at least such portion of 
it as you think necessary. 

A portion of the testimony was then read to the committee and it 
was filed in evidence. 

(See Exhibit C.) 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 163 



Saturday, March 1, 1890. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT P. PORTER. 

EoEEET P. Porter sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Lind (in the chair) : 

Q. Yon are Superintendent of the Census ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You may state briefly what you know in relation to the appoint- 
ment in your office of Mr. Shidy ; also the matters which actuated you 
in making that appointment. — A. I think the first time my attention 
was called to Mr. Shidy was by Mr. Eoosevelt, who spoke to me about 
him. Mr. Eoosevelt said that he was a man who had been employed 
in the Milwaukee post-office, and that in consequence of his having 
given some testimony which rather aided the Commission to find out 
certain facts they were interested in, he had been dismissed (Mr. 
Eoosevelt thought unjustly dismissed), and he asked me if I could find 
a j)lace in my office for such a man. I said I was going to employ a 
good many clerks, and if he would bring Mr. Shidy on, that we would 
examine him, and if he was found to be competent I would recommend 
him for appointment. I said as he had been dismissed from the Post- 
Office Department, as a matter of courtesy it would be necessary to ask 
the Postmaster-General if he had any objection to my appointing the 
man in the Interior Department, and I think the Postmaster-General 
said he had no objection. Mr. Shidy passed an examination and was 
recommended for appointment. He was appointed and went to work. 
That is all I know about it. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q. He was appointed at $720 and has been promoted to $900 since? 
— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Here is a letter from T. Campbell Copeland, superintendent of 
the ninth division in your office. This letter says " He is one of our 
most valuable clerks." This is a letter handed to us the other day in 
reference to Mr. Shidy. 

Mr. Lind. It would be improper to put it in evidence in this con- 
nection. (To the witness.) Do you personally know anything about his 
standing and efficiency in the office? — A. Yes, sir ; he has passed a fair 
examination. It is not what I would consider a first-class one. I think 
it was about 67 or 70. He had had some experience as an executive 
man in a small way. He has been found to be a useful man a little above 
the average. I know exactly what he does. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. I understood yon to say that Mr. Eoosevelt told you that Shidy 
had been unjustly dismissed i — A. I understood that from what Mr. 
Eoosevelt told me. That was my impression about it. 

Q. Did Mr. Eoosevelt inform you at the time that this man had been 
an officer in the Civil Service Commission, and as such had repeatedly 
violated the law 1 — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he tell you this man had been engaged, while a member of the 
board of examiners, in gerrymandering the list of eligibles and making- 
false certifications 1 — A. I did not understand that he was in any way 
connected with the Civil Service Commission. I thought he was an 
employe of the post-office at Milwaukee in the money-order depart- 
ment. 



164 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. The only information Mr. Eoosevelt gave you was that this man 
in his opinion had been unjustly dismissed ?-- A. That was the main 
idea. 

Q. It was upon that recommendation you allowed Shidy to take an 
examination ? — A. Yes, sir. Some responsible person has to make a 
recommendation 5 an examination is made and that is graded, and af- 
terwards an appointment follows or does not, as the case may be. 

Mr. Stone. Did Mr. Eoosevelt state to you the reasons for his dis- 
missal? — A. I think not in detail. I have so many of those cases that 
I would not be sure about that. I think he simply stated that Shidy 
was dismissed. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. If Mr. Eoosevelt had told you that this man had persistently vio- 
lated the law, had stufled the list of eligibles, had mutilated the records 
and made false certifications, would you have appointed him in your 
bureau ? — A. I certainly should not. 

Mr. EwART. I know you would not. 

Mr. Stone. You say you know you would not ? 

Mr. EwAKT. I say Mr. Porter would not. That is what Mr. Shidy 
here called an anomalous statement. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. This man Shidy testified on yesterday that he was now receiving 
a salary of $900 a year, and that he was practically in charge of twenty- 
odd men engaged in tabulating and arranging statistics of indebtedness 
on cities of 2,500 and over, and that there were persons under his 
control receiving much larger salaries. What I want to know is what 
system is it that gives a subordinate a larger salary than the man in 
charge, the responsible man ? — A. That is easily explained in the cen- 
sus work. It has to be done rapidly. We are just beginning our bu- 
reau. I think Shidy has not been, in charge of that more than two or 
three weeks, and some other men may have been in the office longer 
and perhaps good at figures, and he may have been chosen within the 
last few weeks, and I think he has been. I do not make any more pro- 
motions until the first of April. If we find a man has changed his posi- 
tion, which a great many do in the Census Office, we have no time to 
wait. 1 try to equalize it the next time I make promotions. 

Q. He occupies relatively the position of the chief of the division? — 
A. I think he has charge of certain tabulations that they are making. 

Q. He simply gives out the work then ? — A. He gives out the work. 

Q. These persons in the room with him are, in a certain sense, under 
his control ? — A. He might simply be the man that takes around these 
sheets when finished, giving them to another and keeping the general 
run of the work. 

Q. Is he responsible in that room? — A. No; I do not think he is even 
the responsible man in that room. 

Q. Who is the responsible man? — A. The responsible man is the 
chief of the division. 

Q. Was Mr. Shidy mistaken in saying he had charge of the men in 
the room ? — A. I should think he was. He may give out the work. 

Mr. Andrew. I think he used the expression " gave out the work," 
and had "twenty men under him." — A. That is hardly a fair statement. 
I do not think he keeps their time or anything of that kind. That is 
kept by another clerk. He has. not been there more than two or three 
weeks. The schedules have not been out more than three weeks. 

Q. He does occupy some position of control or superiority in the 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 165 

room. It may be of a low o^rder. Who conferred that authority upon 
him ? — A. The chief ot the division, Mr. Copeland. To-morrow he may 
confer it upon some one else. 

Q. To-morrow Mr. Sbidy may not be in the office? — A. It is a matter 
that does not necessarily come under the superv^ision of the Superin- 
tendent. We hold the division responsible for its work. 

By Mr. Koosevelt : 

Q. It was some time after I first spoke to you before Shidy was ap- 
pointed ? — A. It was about six weeks. 

Q. Protests were made against the appointment by a number of gen- 
tlemen ; was not that the case ? — A. Some protests were made. 

Q. The protest was made by Mr. Yan Schaick?— A. Yes, sir 5 he was 
one. 

Q. Then one or more Senators referred to it ? — A. Senator Spooner I 
think did. 

Q. So that you told me once or twice that there was great opposition 
to it "? — A. I told you there was some opposition. 

Q. And you showed me, did you not, a number of letters from differ- 
ent places ? — A. There was one letter and there was another letter in- 
closing a clipping from a newspaper. I remember two letters, one from 
Kansas opposing Mr. Shidy in a general way. 

Q. Saying he had been treacherous to Mr. P aul ? — A. Yes, sir j had 
committed some fault. 

Q. For six weeks the matter was hung up or in abeyance while the 
protests were made against the appointment ? — A. That is true. 

Q. And while I was asking for the appointment I told you that this 
man Shidy had been removed from office in consequence of giving testi- 
mony concerning the condition of affairs at the Milwaukee post-office 
where he and the postmaster had been mixed up in some matters that 
we had reported upon, my report being at that time public. I had re- 
ported in June and that was long after June that I spoke to you. — A. 
It must have been about the 15th of September. 

Q. It must have been after my report was published broadcast, and 
after there had been a very great deal of discussion about it by Con- 
gressman Yan Schaick and the Senators, and after the Postmaster-Gen- 
eral, with the consent of the President, had notified Mr. Paul he would 
have been removed if he had not resigned which was done in August. 
It was after that time ? — A. It was in September. I could not give you 
the facts about the Milwaukee post-office matter. 

Q. You knew that I had made a report on the subject? — A. I knew 
that and that Shidy and Paul were implicated in that report, and the 
report was public and that the Postmaster-General had in writing indi- 
cated to you his approval of Shidy's transfer, he having known all 
about my report and having acted upon it. That is true, I think. 

Q. I sent you a letter of the Postmaster-General approving the 
transfer and saying in substance that he would be glad if Mr. Shidy 
could get this position, and I told you that you would receive a formal 
letter from the Postmaster-General on the subject saying it would be 
satisfactory to him to have the appointment made ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiND. Shidy having testified that he had been a party to viola- 
tions of law and the regulations of the Civil Service Commission while 
in the office at Milwaukee, was asked : " Do I understand you to say 
that if you had been retained you would have repeated these violations 
of the civil service law which you stated you had done heretofore ? " 
To that question he answered : " If the conditions were the same, I 



166 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

would see no wron,;^ in it." Suppose that Shidy had been re-appointed 
under the new postmaster at Milwaukee and the conditions had been 
the same as they were under Paul, and he had continued in doing what 
he did. If you had had knowledge of his views (I might call them 
moral views upon that question) would you have made this appoint- 
ment ? — A. That is rather a hard question because I have not read his 
testimony, and I do not know exactly what he said. 

Mr. Stone. Mr. Hatton asked him if the Superintendent of the Census 
Bureau should ask him to make false returns, would he comply with 
that request, and he answered: "If the Superintendent of the Census 
wants false returns made he knows that matter. I am his servant. In 
regard to the post-office Mr. Paul was my superior officer. In regard 
to the civil service matter it was impossible to separate my two lis." 

Mr. LiND. Assuming that the witness was candid in this statement 
and that those were his convictions in regard to a man's public duty, 
with a knowledge of those facts before you, would you have appointed 
him ? — A. I do not think I would. But the point is this : If the Super- 
intendent of the Census was a kind of man that wanted false returns, 
a man that would make false returns would be the kind of a man he 
would want to have. This is rather a difficult question to answer, 
directly or otherwise. That presupposes the Superintendent of the 
Census wants false returns. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Did any of these letters recommending the appointment of this 
man state in any way that he had been guilty and had testified before 
the Commission that he had made false certifications 1 — A. l^o, sir ; the 
letters protesting against Shidy were of a general character ; that he 
was treacherous. 

Q. Did anybody interested in his appointment ever tell you how he 
had committed these offenses *? — A. 1 am sure they did not. 

Q. If you had been informed of tbem would you have appointed him? — 
A. Really I do not know what he has done. 

Q. Believing in Mr. Roosevelt, and his friends do believe in him, if 
you had heard that this man had been guilty of making false returns, 
stuffij^ig the eligible list and committing crimes of that character, be- 
lieving in Mr. Roosevelt, would you have appointed him ? — A. You are 
going back to the same proposition you had up a minute ago. That 
would be attacking Mr. Roosevelt. If he was that kind of a man of 
course he would not have said anything but that. The chances are he 
did not know it. 

Q. Who did not know it ? — A. Mr. Roosevelt. I told him to send 
this man in and I would be glad to have him examined and appointed. 

Q. Suppose you yourself had known it ? — A. The point is this, if I 
had known he had done what *? 

Q. That he had testified to false returns, stufiing the eligible list, and 
violating his oath of office. — A. I do not know whether he has or not. 
I have not read the testimony on that point. 

Mr. LiND. It is on the assumption that you knew the statements were 
true. 

The Witness. What I want to express upon the committee is that I 
do not know anything about the statements. I just read the para- 
graph referring to the Superintendent of the Census. That is all I have 
read. 

Mr. Thompson. If Mr. Roosevelt had stated to you when he came to 
you with this application for the appointment of Shidy that Shidy was 
a member of the local board of examiners, and was assigned to this 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 167 

extra work; that he had allowed himself to be improperly influenced 
loj his superior officer who had the absolute power of removal ; that ho 
had confessed his fault most humbly, craved for forgiveness, and given 
assurance that if he was forgiven he would not again be guilty ; and, 
if Mr. Boosevelt had said in addition to that, that he was dismissed not 
for cause but for telling the truth when he came before the Commission, 
and saying that "if I testify I will be removed," and he was subse- 
quently dismissed not for misdeeds but for telling the truth ; and if Mr. 
iioosevelt had stated all these facts so far as he knew, and that Shidy 
was not a corrupt man but yielded to his superior officer, under all these 
circumstances would you have given him a trial ? 

The Witness. I think under those circumstances I should have 
looked more carefully into the matter. I do not know that a man in 
my position has a right to take the word of another man in a matter of 
that kind. 

Q. Suppose that you were satisfied that Mr. Roosevelt was telling 
the truth ? — A. It was one of those cases I should want to pass upon 
by itself. 

Q. If you were satisfied that this man had been removed not for 
doing wrong but for doing right, under those circumstances, if you had 
looked into the matter, would you not have been willing to give him a 
trial ? — A. I would not say I would not give a man a trial under those 
circumstances. I do not think I can answer your question one way or 
the other. I should prefer not to answer it. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q. At the time I spoke to you about this man all these facts were 
made public in my official report and had been published broadcast in 
the press ; and, you were very busy at one time when I went to see you. 
Yon said you had received a protest from Mr. Van Schaick ? — A. I did 
not receive a written protest. He had spoken about it but did not go 
into the details. 

Q. I told you I would not go into the details, that they were in my 
report ; that the circumstances were that Shidy and the postmaster had 
been mixed up in wrong-doing in the post-office ; that Shidy liad come 
forward and confessed, and that he was being persecuted for it, and 
that we were anxious to protect a man who had come forward to tell 
the truth. — A. That is what you stated to me. 

Q. And I referred to that in full in my report. I knew that Paul 
had been dismissed ? — A. I have so many of these, cases ; some days we 
have as many as fifty or sixty appoint^ments to look into. My impres- 
sion was that this man had been dismissed. I did not know that he 
himself had been mixed up in any wrong-doing. I did not know he 
had been in the employ of the Commission. 

Q. Do you recollect my saying to you that he was mixed up in this 
wrongdoing, and that he was the only man who had the manliness to 
come forward and tell about it"? — A. That may be true, but I thought 
you referred to the post-office matter. I did not know that he was a 
member of the Civil Service Commission in any way. 

Mr. Roosevelt I have not jurisdiction in any post-office matters. 
All I would have a right to speak about was his connection with the 
Civil Service. I would not have a right to speak of his connection with 
the post-office, and all my remarks were in connection with the Com- 
mission. You will remember once that I came to speak to you with 
Reporter Dodge, of the Milwaukee Sentinel? — A. I think you did. 

Mr. Hatton. Mr. Roosevelt stated to you that this man was mixed 



168 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

up with the Milwaukee post-office, and did he refer you to a copy of 
his report, or did he send for one ? 

The Witness. I have never seen a copy of his report. I regret to 
say I have not had time to read a copy of Mr. Eoosevelt's last report. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. Do you remember that I told you this man was a 
weak man, who had yielded to the importunities of Mr. Paul, and that 
Paul had turned him out in revenge for his testifying to the truth? 

The Witness. I think that is what you said. 

Mr. Hatton. Did he say what offenses had been committed ? 

The Witness. 1 gathered from Mr. Eoosevelt's statement that he had 
been guilty of helping. Paul to make some political appointments that 
he should not have made. I understood that in a general way. 

TESTIMONY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT— Recalled. 

Hon. Theodore Eoosevelt recalled and further examined. 

The Chairman. Mr. Shidy has testified how he came to be appointed 
a clerk in the Census Bureau. Will you state as briefly as you can your 
knowledge of that matter. 

The Witness. If you will permit me, I will make a brief statement 
of the whole case. Mr. Paul, the postmaster at Milwaukee, has been 
investigated four different times ; the first time by Mr. Doyle, the sec- 
retary of the Civil Service Commission, under Mr. Cleveland. His re- 
port disclosed such a damaging state of affairs that a further investiga- 
tion was ordered, in which Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster took jjart. The 
papers of that investigation are before you. When Mr. Thompson and 
myself came into office we found this testimony, and this matter still 
pending. Our Commission went up there, and made a report upon that 
office. About that time, or shortly afterwards, the post-office inspector, 
Mr. Fleming, a Democrat — at least he was appointed in 1887 under Mr. 
Yilas-r-also went and examined the office, and reported officially that 
the postmaster ought to be dismissed, on the ground that he was dis- 
honest, a fraud, and scientific prevaricator. 

By the Chairman ; 

Q. What was the date of that report? — A. That was shortly after, 
or before, we made our report. I have forgotten the exact date. It 
went into all his faults and misdeeds. I think it would be well, and I 
would request that you send to the Post-Office Department, and get that 
report. Mr. Paul sent affidavits to the Postmaster-General in answer 
to the charges that we made, and I believe also in answer to the charges 
of the post-office inspector. After reviewing in full the matter, the 
President or the Postmaster-General (I have forgotten which) indicated 
that his resignation would be demanded, Mr. Paul having resigned, 
they accepted his resignation, adding that his removal had already been 
determined upon on the strength of the report made by the Commission 
and the post-office inspector. This is preliminary to what I want to say 
about the case. 

When we went up there, we found that there had been systematic 
and repeated violations of the civil-service law, which had been done 
by the board of examiners acting under collusion with the postmaster. 
The postmaster, as he himself testified, though he afterwards retracted 
it, would appoint a man, and then would have an illegal certification 
made to cover that appointment. There were two parties to that wrong- 
doing: one was the postmaster, and one the local board. It was the 
postmaster, and the postmaster alone, who was benefited. It could be 



CIVIL SEE VICE INVESTIGATION. 169 

of 110 benefit to the local board. We were anxious to strike at the 
head criminal, and not at the tools of the criminal. We have always, 
where possible, tried to get the man who is ultimately responsible for 
wrong-doing, and not the poor devil whom he coerces into it. 

The actual labor of the board had been done by its secretary, Mr. 
Shidy. It was done, however, with the full knowledge of the chairman 
of tlie board, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson testified before us. He tes- 
tified before Governor Thompson, Mr. Lyman, and myself, that Shidy 
had consulted with him, and told him that he was under the duress of 
the postmaster, and that he was compelled to make up these stuffed 
certificates. Johnson being at that time chairman of the board, was 
fully aware of the wrong, and stands guilty with Shidy in doing it. 
Jotinsor. would not testify to the facts. He admitted certain things, 
but would not come forward to testify. As soon as Shidy was given a 
chance he at once came forward and told all the truth. I think they 
were there together in the office. They were reluctant to testify, Shidy 
saying, "If I do testify to this I will be dismissed fordoing it." I then 
told Mr. Shidy we would protect him from the consequences of telling 
the truth 5 not from the consequences of the wrong-doing. He then 
testified. We told the same thing to Mr. Johnson, but Johnson would 
not testify. Johnson rightly thought it would be to his interest to keep 
still, for he knew that he would be punished if he certified. We then 
came back and made a full and complete report, showing the guilt of 
Paul, Shidy, and Johnson. We also mentioned that Fahsel was guilty, 
but he resolutely declined to know anything about it at all. Johnson 
admitted of knowing of the wrong-doing. As soon as the first report 
was made public Mr. Paul removed Shidy. 

Our feeling was this, that we wanted to condemn the man who was 
the head devil in the deed, and the man who was really responsible for 
it. Every one knows that if a head of an office wants to go wrong, he 
can readily place his subordinates under duress. It is a hard thing for 
a man to fight against. He ought to do it, a,nd if he has character he 
will do it. Weak men will not do it. Our report was drawn mostly 
against Paul. We also reported strongly against Shidy and Johnson, 
and I beg to call particular attention of the committee to this part of 
the report. It will be noticed that we asked for Shidy the same pro- 
tection meted out to Johnson and Fahsel. We had no intention what- 
ever of doing anything except to prevent punishment being meted out 
to him for doing right, and had no intention of protecting him for his 
wrong-doing. Mr. Paul dismissed Mr. Shidy immediately; and John- 
son, who was equally guilty with Shidy, was not dismissed, has never 
been dismissed, and is now in the ofiSce in the same position in which 
he was then. Whether Fahsel is or is not I do not know. If he has 
been removed it has been for something entirely unconnected with 
this. 

By Mr. Stone : 
Q. Do you speak of your absolute knowledge when you say that if he 
has been removed it has been for something unconnected with this? — 
A. I do not know. I presume I would have been informed il three hak 
been any change; and if he has been removed, it has been for some 
cause unconnected with this. I do not know that he has been removed. 
We asked for the removal of Paul. We thought that the facts of the 
case warranted his removal fully. We felt that his subordinates were 
less guilty than he was. We were willing to leave the measure of their 
punishment, as of course we had to do in any event, to their superior 
officers. Whatever punishment these men should have been found to 



170 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTiaATION. 

have deserved, well and good, let them suffer it. If we had undertaken 
that investigation without knowing the facts set forth by Shidy, we 
might not have been fully informed. I can not say that weVould have 
asked for the removal of Mr. Johnson, as he might have been under 
such duress that we might have thought to reduce him to a half salary 
might have been sufficient punishment. I am not making that state- 
ment absolutely. In Shidy's case tlie circumstance that he had come 
forward and frankly conlessed when an opportunity was given him, 
should undoubtedly have weight as a mitigating circumstance, and I 
should not have been in favor of inflicting upon him an equal punish- 
ment with the other man, unless I was absolutely certain that he de- 
served it. I do not believe in hitting the tool rather than the man who 
wields the tool and who alone is responsible. Shidy was timid. He was 
dismissed for no delinquency ; but, on the contrary, for having testified 
to the truth, and under the civil service law he could have been re-in- 
stated at any time. He was not dismissed for having done badly. He 
had tried to atone by doing well. He was dismissed for trying to atone 
and doing well. 

My two colleagues went to the Postmaster-General, as they informed 
me, and asked that Shidy be re-instated. They had no intention of pre- 
venting any punishment that might ultimately be visited upon him 
for his wrong-doing, but merely to see that he was not punished for 
having told the truth to us. He was not re-instated. Shidy had come 
forward frankly and told Governor Thompson, Mr. Lyman, and myself, 
when we were up there, the circumstances of this case. He did tell 
us that he had committed the wrong-doing, and that he regretted it 
extremely. When he testified before us there was no flippancy or levity 
in his testimony. He did not admit that he would do a like thing under 
the same circumstances again. On the contrary, he expressed a deep, 
sincere, and humble regret for what he had done. He said he would 
hereafter do, or aim to do, as uprightly as any public officer ever had 
done. ,He explained that he was a poor man wholly dependent upon 
his salary, and had a wife and two young children ; that Paul had his 
fate in the hollow of his hand, and could at any time turn him out ; that 
Paul had forced him to do these things and that he had yielded, being 
in Paul's power ; that did not excuse his offense, but it certainly pal- 
liated it. 

Accordingly, having failed to have him re-instated, I went to the Post- 
master-General myself and laid the case before him, the Postmaster- 
General having before him our full report. The Pestmaster-General 
must have known all these facts. I told him that Shidy was being 
persecuted for having had the manliness to come lorward and tell the 
truth. I asked him if he could not have him re-instated ; would he be 
willing that Shidy should have a position in the Census Bureau, I lay- 
ing stress upon the fact that we were simply trying to protect Shidy 
on this account. I said that Shidy had been punished for doing right, 
and not for doing wrong. The Postmaster-General said he was willing 
that Shidj^ might be given a place in the Census Bureau. 

1 went and saw Mr. Porter, Our report had been made out, and had 
been spread broadcast through the press. It contained a full and spe- 
cific account of all of Shidy's wrong-doings. Mr. Paul had answered 
it two or three times, and had been answered back. There was a great 
deal of discussion about it through the press of the country. Finally, 
after a month or two, the Postmaster-General or the President had 
acted on the post-office case, and it was a matter of ]niblic notoriety. 
I went up to see Mr. Porter, who was very busy, and 1 told him that I 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 171 

had a favor to ask on behalf of the Civil Service Commission, stating 
that it was with the consent of my colleagues; that through testifying 
in our behalf to the truth Mr. Shidy had been turned out of the post- 
office at Milwaukee, and we wanted to protect him, and did not want to 
see a man punished for having told the truth. As Mr. Porter said to 
you to-day, I told him that Shidy had done wrong under coercion, 
and that he had repented and confessed. I did not go into theminutia 
of the case because Mr. Porter was in a great hurry, and I referred him 
to my report, which I supposed he must have seen. I gave him prac- 
tically a resume of the case just as he has testified to it here to-day. 
The case was hung up for six weeks. Mr. Van Schaick protested 
against Mr. Shidy's appointment, and Senator Spooner and one or two 
outside parties wrote letters protesting against it, so that I had every 
reason to believe that Mr. Porter knew all the facts that he cared to 
know in reference to it. All that was said against Mr. Shidy was be- 
cause he had testified against Paul. So far as the facts were concerned 
I believed they were all in Mr. Porter's possession. Mr. Porter said he 
would give him an appointment conditional ui3on his passing an exam- 
ination. 

I had seen the report of the former postmaster at Milwaukee which 
was in the evidence and it said that Mr. Shidy had been nine years in the 
post-office and that he was a peculiarly efficient and competent man. 
Shidy had expressed the deepest penitence for his misdeeds. He ad- 
mitted that he had yielded to temptation and showed how strong the 
temptation was and how completely he was in the power of the post- 
master. He had aroused our sympathies. To come back to the vital 
point, he was being punished, not for his wrong doing, but because he 
had done right in trying to atone for his wrong. 

He came on and passed an examination and is now serving credita- 
bly, Mr. Porter stated above the average, having been promoted and is 
now acting chief in his division. In so far as his efficiency and his ca- 
pacity as a public servant went he justified entirely the opinion of the 
Commissioners and has made a capable public servant in his new posi- 
tion. 

In conclusion I will say this : The Government must protect its wit- 
nesses who are being persecuted for telling the truth. I felt that we 
would be derelict to a ijublic duty if we did not strive to protect him. 
We have always striven to protect persons under similar circumstances. 
I again wish to call the attention' of the committee here clearly to the 
intent of our report, which was to ask that no punishment should be 
visited upon Shidy for telling of these misdeeds and none visited upon 
Johnson and Fahsel who were equally guilty but had not told the truth. 
I did not want him punished while no punishment was inflicted upon 
the others for their wrong-doings. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. Has the Commission compnlsory process for the attendance of 
witnesses I — A. No, sir ; all our attendants are purely voluntary. They 
can not be forced to attend if they do not wish to. 

Q. Have you tested the question by making application to the circuit 
court for process in your behalf? — A. We have always understood that 
we had not that power. We have embodied a request that we should 
be given power to subpoena witnesses and to administer oaths. We 
have power to do neither. 

By Mr. Greenhalge : 
Q. Is there anything in the terms of the act providing what shall be 



172 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATIOK. 

done in this respect ? — A. The act provides we shall investigate and re- 
port to the President, but makes no provision how we shall follow that 
out. When I was in New York last summer I consulted the attorney 
of the Civil Service Commission, who said that we had no power to 
administer oaths or compel the attendance of witnesses. 

Q. Then if a witness did not appear voluntarily, you had no power 
to compel him? — A. If a witness does not choose to testify, we cannot 
make him. 

Mr. LiND. Have you submitted that question to the Attorney-Gen- 
eral ? 

The Witness. We did not, because the Commission proceeded on the 
assumption that it could not, and it never occurred to me that we 
could. 

Mr. BoATNEE,. Did Mr. Paul deny the statement of Mr. Shidy ? 

The Witness. Mr. Paul has denied every fact and has denied his 
denial of the fact. He has further denied his denials of the denials. 
He has denied everything. 

By Mr. Hopkins : 

Q. Those are three removals of denials 1 — A. He has made compli- 
cated denials. I will state that in our report we explicitly say we have 
taken nothing against Paul on the unsupported statement of Shidy. In 
two instances we took the word of Jackson and Shidy when both testi- 
hed to the same state of facts. 

Mr. BoATNER. Have you any fear that you may have done Paul an 
injustice? 

The Witness. I have absolutely none. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. When was Mr. Doyle appointed secretary of your Commission ? — 
A. I believe he was appointed when it was first organized in 1883. 
Doyle is a Democrat. He was then the stenographer of the Commis- 
sion. 

Q. He has been connected with it a long time ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was this report made by Mr. Doyle and Major Webster 
filed with the Commission ? — A. The first report of Doyle was filed 
some time in 1888. The report of Major Webster and Mr. Doyle, which 
was the first complete statement of the matter, was probably not pre- 
pared and put in shape until some time in the fall of 1888, about the 
time Mr. Oberly went out of the Commission. 

Mr. Oberly. It was after the time. 

The Witness. It was after the time. I believe Mr. Oberly vaguely 
knew there were charges against Paul, but never bad any specific facts 
laid before him, 

Mr. Stone. Is it a fact that at that time Mr. Lyman was the sole 
Commissioner and was absent from the city quite awhile? 

The Witness. Mr. Lyman was not then the sole Commissioner. Mr. 
Edgerton and Mr. Lyman were both on the Commission. 1 have un- 
derstood that Mr. Edgerton was absent quite often at that time. 

Mr. GreenhalGtE. This is not within your knowledge? 

The Witness. I am simply answering Mr. Stone's question. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. What I was endeavoring to get at was to see why this matter was 
not acted upon sooner ? — A. That I can not tell you. " 

Q. When you went to see the Postmaster-General about Mr. Shidy, 
did you go alone ? — A. I did, sir. 



CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 173 

Q. Were you the only one who visited him upon that subject ? — A. 
Mr. Lyman and Governor Thompson had i^reviously visited him on the 
subject. 

Q. Did you ever in your conferences with him state to him just what 
Shidy had said about this matter "? — A. I told the Postmaster-General 
that Shidy was penitent in the matter. 

Q. Did you state as to what he had done in the matter of making 
false certifications "? — A, This report was offlcially laid before him and 
he had acted upon it. I presume he had read it, and I think that is a 
fair presumption. 

Q. Did he discuss it as if he was familiar with it ? — A. I do not think 
he discussed it at all. I think he said he had notified Mr. Paul that his 
removal had been determined upon. 

Q. I understood you to say that the Postmaster-General at your so- 
licitation wrote a letter to the Superintendent of the Census recom- 
mending the appointment of Mr. Shidy to a position there 1— A. I would 
not say he recommeuded him. Mr. Porter got a letter of the usual 
form. The Postmaster- General wrote two letters, one to me saying he 
would be glad to do auythiugin his power — I could not recollect the 
exact expression he used, but something like this — " to atone for the hard- 
ships done Shidy," or some such expression. What we originally 
wanted was that Shidy should be re-instated, and that whatever pun- 
ishment was meted out should be visited upon them all. 

Q. Do you mean that you wanted the Postmaster-General to have 
him re-instated? — A. Yes, sir; although I never spoke about it to him. 

Q. Can you state to us the reason why the Postmaster-General re- 
fused to interfere in Shidy's behalf as requested? — A. Of my own 
knowledge I can not. I can not recollect distinctly the details of my 
conversation with the Postmaster-General beyond the general facts I 
have stated. I think I spoke to him about the hardship it was to us to 
feel that a man who was equally guilty with Shidy was kept in oiSce 
because he did not tell the truth, and that Shidy was turned out be- 
cause he did tell the truth. I had learned that Congressman Van 
Schaick was hostile to Mr. Shidy on account of Mr. Van Schaick being 
a warm friend of Mr. Paul, the statement having been made to me 
that Paul, though a Democrat, had given an active support to Yan 
Schaick. I know nothing of that beyond the fact that it was told to 
me that Mr. Van Schaick was the champion of Paul, and of his having 
made the statement that we had interfered with his prerogative, or 
making some such statement as that. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. In all this time was Shidy secretary of the board of local ex- 
aminers in the post-ofi&ce at Milwaukee ? — A. Certainly. 

Q. And an officer of the Commission ? — A. He was a subordinate of 
the Commission. 

Q. Was it not his duty, as an officer of that Commission, to report to 
you at once any violation of law 1 — A. I think it was. I have not re- 
cently looked into the duties of the secretaries of local boards, but I con- 
clude that any employ^ of the public service ought to report any wrong- 
doing he sees, 

Q. Whether on account of duress or not ? — A. Whether under duress 
or not. 

Q. Did Shidy ever make any report to you or any officer of the Com- 
mission while he was under duress ? — A. He did. 



174 " CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. When did he first make that report % — A. It must have been to 
Doyle. 

Q. "Was the statement made under oath? — A. We have his original 
letter handed to Doyle at that time. 

Q. Was it made voluntarily? 

Mr. LiND. Why not ask Mr. Doyle that question? It would only be 
hearsay with Mr. Eoosevelt. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. In all this time he had an opportunity or a "chance," as you preter 
to call it in your evidence, to make this report, did he not?— A. In a 
certain sense he always had a chance. There are plenty of weak, timid 
men who would not volunteer themselves to report a wrong-doing, but 
who undoubtedly are conscientious enough to report it as soon as cir- 
cumstances arise where it is possible for them to do so, and there are 
other men, like Mr. Johnson, who when these circumstances arise would 
not report it. Mr. Shidy came under the first class. 

Q. What is the reason he did not make this rej)ort earlier than he 
did % — A. I can only give my suppositions on that. 

Q. Did the substance of his testimony satisfy you that he persistently 
and repeatedly violated the law?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That he had made false certifications ? — A. We have stated that. 

Q. That he had mutilated the records ? — A. I do not know that we 
said that. 

Q. That he had tortured the records ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That, in a word, he had repeatedly violated his oath of office ? — A. 
Precisely. 

Q. After you became aware of these facts that he had stuffed the list 
of eligibles, that he had violated his oath of office, made false certifica- 
tions, and that he was a weak man, and you claimed he committed these 
violations because he was forced to do it by his superior officer, you 
asked for his re-instatement in that office? — A. We did, not with any 
reference to these violations, but because he was removed for having 
tried to atone for them. 

Q. When a man commits perjury by the violation of the law he has 
sworn to enforce and when he confesses he has made false certifications 
and has persistently and repeatedly violated the law, is it your theory 
as a civil-service reformer that, because he has frankly confessed that 
he has violated the law, expressing an intention to reform, that he 
should be re-instated in office? — A. Do you mean in the same position? 

Q. The same position or any jjosition in the Government? — A. That 
would depend on the circumstances of the case. 

Q. Take the circumstances in the Shidy case ? — A. I mean to say my 
action was right in the Shidy case. 

Q. Then I take it that in any case where the circumstances are the 
same as in the Shidy case, where if it were called to your attention as 
a civil-service reformer, that you would unhesitatingly recommend that 
man for a position in the Government employ or re-infetate him in the 
position in which he had repeatedl^^ violated the law? — A. Not at all, 
sir. 

Q, I ask you if this is your theory, supposing the same state of facts 
as existed in the Shidy case? — A. I think not. It is the first case of 
its kind that came to our attention. 

Q. I understood you to say that if a similar case arose you could not 
take the course you took in the Shidy case, altiiough the circumstances 
might have been identically the same? — A. That I can not answer. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 175 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. I understood you to say you made no objections to removals on 
account of these violations °? — A. I explicitly stated that. 

Q. Shidy was removed because he told about it 1 — A. That is pre- 
cisely my statement. I do not want to be misunderstood. Mr. Ewart 
is evidently wishing- me to state that if these circumstances arose I would 
not act as I did then, giving the impression that I was sorry for what 
I had done. On the contrary, I think I was precisely right, and I am 
glad I took that stand. 

By Mr. Ewakt : 
Q. Do you mean that you would take the same course with other 
cases "'. — A. There has been full and ample warning given now, and we 
might not behave with such leniency in the future. In this case I felt 
that we treated Mr. Paul himself with great leniency. One thing I 
had forgotten. I told you Mr. Paul not only denied this, but denied 
his denial. When we went to see Mr. Paul he told us his term of office 
was over and that he was simply hanging on until his successor should 
be appointed. After we returned I drew up a short and rather scath- 
ing report. "Don't shoot at dead ducks," said Governor Thompson. 
" He has gone. Let us simply make a report that he had been guilty 
of gross misconduct, and not recommend his dismissal." We wanted 
to be just strong enough to make his case an example, and yet not be 
too harsh. Paul was foolish enough to try to fight back. We found 
he had not been removed nor had he served his time out, but had sev- 
eral months yet to serve, all of which is stated in the report which we 
then drew up. In future, in any case, if we found a number of persons 
engaged in wrong- doing and one repents, I say I would regard that as 
a strong circumstance in his favor, and I say it would be my purpose 
to practically take it into account when judgment is meted out. I 
could not hold my head up if I had allowed Shidy to be turned out and 
persecuted for having told the truth, in spite of his wrong-doing, when 
other men who had been just as bad were not turned out. I would 
have felt I was doing great injustice to him. 

By Mr, 8tone : 

Q. This report made by Webster and Doyle was filed, I believe, some 
time in October, 1888? — A. I think it was filed in November. I think 
it was after Mr. Oberly left. 

Q. Did you or your colleagues of the Commission examine that report 
before you went out to Milwaukee ? — A. The matter was first brought 
to my attention by Major Webster, on the eve of our departure for 
Chicago. I believe there was a remark made by Mr. Lyman that there 
had been a case of a man in Milwaukee, Mr. Paul, and the only account 
that I read before going there was this analytical statement of Paul, 
the certification book and other records, and a statement of Paul him- 
self. I did not read Mr. Shidy's testimony at all that I know of. 

Q. YOu had read it somewhat?— A. I had looked over the papers, 
but how much I had read of them I could not tell you at this moment. 

By Mr. Em^ART : 

Q. Why was it necessary to offer protection to this witness Shidy?— 
A. I do not know that it was necessary for me to do it. When the man 
came forward and said, "Gentlemen, I do not want to testify; I am de- 
pendent on my sadary, and I will be ruined and turned out if I do tes- 
tify," I naturally said (I believe I was the spokesman), " Mr. Shidy, we 
will protect you for telling the truth." We did not promise him protec- 
tion for any of his misdeeds. We promised to protect him from any 



176 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 

punishment which might be visited upon him by Mr. Paul for telling 
the truth. Shidy was much afraid, because he knew that Paul had as- 
sisted Mr. Van Shaick for Congress, so that he had a " pull" with the Re- 
publican Congressman who would undoubtedly name ^^aul's successor, 
and so Shidy felt that if Paul got down on him he would be killed, not 
only with Paul but with Paul's successor. That is the reason why he 
was reluctant to testify. Johnson did not tescity and has been kept in, 
showing that Shidy's fears were warranted. 

Mr. BoATNER. Would you not consider yourself under somewhat of 
an obligation to do for Shidy what you have done, whether you made 
any promise or not? Would not the justice of the case warrant it? 

The Witness. I think I should have. I would be very reluctant to 
see a man punished who had come forward aud told the truth for the 
Government, even if he had done wrong before. I think Shidy has been 
greatly punished. He has lost five month's salary and then got an ap- 
pointment at $720, while his original place paid him $1,300. He has 
been badly punished for it. 

Mr. Stone. For what has he been rewarded by this treatment ? 

The Witness. I did not consider it in the light of reward. 1 consid- 
ered it in the light of an injustice, dismissing a man not for dereliction, 
but for having testified to the truth. 

By Mr. Butterworth : 

Q. You wanted to make it equally as advantageous to tell the truth 
as to tell a lie? — A. Yes, sir. I think it due to myself to say one 
thing, and that is, that Shidy did not boast of what he had done. On 
the contrary, he expressed sincere contrition. 

Q. He stated here that he would do the same thing under the same 
circumstances ? — A. He did. I now believe him to be unfit for any public 
position. 

By Mr. EvfART : 

Q. And utterly untruthful ? — A. I am not perfectly certain about 
that. I have not made up my mind about that. 

Mr. BoATNER. I suppose that when you examined him you were sup- 
posing the sentiment to apply that " so long as the lamp holds out to 
burn the vilest sinner may return ? " 

The Witness. Yes, sir. I asked him if he did not appreciate what 
we had done for him, and if he did not appreciate the gravity of his 
offense, and if given another chance wouldn't he always do right, and 
he said " Yes." He seemed to feel very sorry about it, and said he 
would always try to do right. He said this in the presence of Governor 
Thompson. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Coming back to your interview with the Postmaster-General, did 
I understand you to say that you requested him to re-instate this man 
Shidy as a clerk in the Milwaukee post-office 1 — A. I suppose I said I 
was very sorry he could not be re-instated. The Postmaster-General 
practically refused to re-instate him. I went to Mr. Wanamaker and I 
chink I said to him that I was sorry that Shidy could not be re-instated. 
I may be wrong in my recollection about that. I think he said some- 
thing or other about waiting to see Congressman Van Schaick, or ex- 
pressed some regret. I have explained that already. 

Q. Do you recollect saying anything about the removal of Johnson or 
Pahsel ? — A. We simply made this report. We did not make specific 
recommendations for their removal. We reported the case and laid it 



CIYIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 177 

before the Postmaster-General for his action. That was the course we 
took in this case. Paul we wanted removed. 

Q. In this interview with the Postmaster-G-eneral do you recollect 
whether or not you specifically stated to the Postmaster- General that 
this man Avas guilty of making false certifications, etc. ? — A. I am very 
confident I did not. I may explain that the Postmaster-General had 
our report before him. 

Q. You do not know whether he had read the report ? — A. He acted 
on the report. I did not read it aloud to him, but he had acted on it, 
and the presumption is fair that he had read it. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
simply want to confirm what my colleague, Mr. Eoosevelt, has said 
about the circumstances of the interview between the Commission and 
Shidy when he gave this testimony for which he was subsequently dis- 
missed. He was very reluctant to testify, and stated that he thought 
he would be dismissed if he did so. Mr. Eoosevelt gave him this as- 
surance, that we would protect him as far as we could if he made a 
frank statement. I remember Mr. Eoosevelt calling his attention to 
the fact of his gross dereliction of duty, and asked him what statement 
he had to make. He said, " I have no excuse to offer, except that I 
acted under the direction of the postmaster, and I thought he would 
dismiss me if I disobeyed his orders." I never saw a man more contrite 
and penitent, or a more humble man than he was at that time ; and he 
touched my sympathies in spite of his misdeeds. I say unhesitatingly 
that I would have been disposed to help a man, if I could have done it, 
in any public or private way, who had expressed repentance and prom- 
ised in the future not to do so again. I never saw a man in my life to 
whom I was more inclined to say, " Go and sin no more." I sympa- 
thized with his condition, and I knew that he was under a powerful 
temptation. I cannot state that he said it in words, but I think he 
probably did say it in words, that it was a great relief to him to come 
before us and to be able to tell this whole thing. He said it had been 
a burden upon his mind. 

[At this point the witness was interrupted in order that the com- 
mittee might hear the Postmaster-General.] 

'testimony of HON. JOHN WANAMAKER. 

Hon. John Wanamaker sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. I want to ask you with regard to the recommendation of one Shidy 
to a position in the Census Bureau and in reference to an interview 
which Mr. Eoosevelt had with you on that subject, and whether at any- 
time in the course of the interview he stated that Shidy, for whom he 
wished to secure a position, had made false certifications of the Civil 
Service Commission, had repeatedly violated his oath of office, had 
stuffed the list of eligibles, and had mutilated or tortured the records 
of which he was the custodian as secretary of the local board of exam- 
iners of the post-office at Milwaukee ?— A. He did not. 

Q. Please state exactly what he did say to you when he came to you 
and asked you in reference to the appointment of Shidy to a clerkship 
in the Census Bureau.— A. So far as I can remember, he said that 
Shidy had aided in an investigation at the Milwaukee post-office, and 
that the postmaster had taken offense and had dismissed him ; that he 
felt an interest in Shidy, because he did not want any one who had as- 
3117 12 



178 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 

sistecl the Civil Service Commission in the exercise of its duties to be 
punished, and therefore he was interested in securing a place for 
Shidy, and asked whether 1 had any objection, to which, of course, I 
answered that I had not. 

Q. Did he state in what manner Shidy had aided in this investiga- 
tion ? — A. He said that Shidy had given the Civil Service Commission 
all the assistance that he could ; and he conveyed the impression to me 
that Shidy was an excellent man and worthy of the interest he was 
feeling in him, and that he wanted to help him because he had aided 
the Civil Service Commission in the exercise of their duties, and he 
did not want to see him suffer for it. 

Q. In the course of that conversation, did he refer to a report he had 
made, or a report the Commission had made with regard to the work- 
ings of the post-oflice at Milwaukee "? — A, It is possible that he did. I 
do not remember that he called my particular attention to anything, but 
simply asked whether I had any objection to his being tried, if a place 
could be found, for Shidy. 

Q. Do you remember whether or not he called for that report at the 
time? — A. I am very sure he did not. 

Q. Have you read that report *? — A. I have. 

Q. Had you read it at that time ? — A. I think I had — without refer- 
ence to Shidy, but with reference to the post-office. I was interested in 
any question in reference to the duties of the postmaster. 

Q. You have a great many reports of that kind constantly before 
you °? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In this particular instance your attention was directed more partic- 
ularly to his peuitency than to the office that Mr. Eoosevelt wanted him 
to Lave"? — A. I took it for granted that Mr. Roosevelt knew the gen- 
tleman he was acting for, and the impression he gave me was that he was 
one of the men who had been badly treated by reason of his testimony. 

Q. Did Mr. Eoosevelt state anything as to the reasons why Shidy was 
dismissed from his position in the Milwaukee post-office? — A. I think 
on a previous occa.^ ion he had spoken about it. 

Q. Did either of the other Commissioners request you to re-instate 
Mr. Shidy in his position ? — A. JSTot that I can I'emember. 

Q. You have no recollection as to that ? — A. I feel sure they did not. 

By Mr. Stone : 
Q. I think you are mistaken about that. — A. It may be possible. I 
have no recollection of having spoken to Mr. Lyman or Mr. Thompson 
on the subject. 

By Mr. Ewaet : 

Q. At any of these interviews, either with Mr. Roosevelt or the other 
Commissioners, did either of them ever request you to remove Mr. 
Johnson and Mr. Fahsel, or other members of the board at Milwau- 
kee. — A. I think not. 

Mr. BtjtteRw^orth. I understood you to say in giving an account 
of the interview with Mr. Roosevelt, that you did not give the language, 
but rather the impression ? 

Mr. Wanamaker, Only the impression. 

Mr. Lyman. Do you recollect that one afternoon Mr. Roosevelt and 
myself went to your room and showed to you two telegrams that we 
brought with us concerning Mr. Shidy's dismissal from the Milwaukee 
post-office, which you read ; and we asked you what, if anything, could 
be done about it ? 

Mr. Wanamaker. It is possible that that might have occurred, but 
I can not remember. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 179 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. There is one question that the committee, perhaps, does not fully 
understand. Did you recommend the appointment of this man Shidy, 
or did you simply report that your bureau had no objections to his ap- 
pointment ? — A. My letter will show that. I think I simply said that 
I had no objection to his appointment. I have the letter. I was look- 
ing into a drawer last evening, as it is the end of the month, and I 
found a letter. 

Q. Do you desire to submit the letter? — A. It bears on this point. I 
understood that Mr. Eoosevelt was endeavoring to ascertain whether I 
would object to his employment, aud I simply took the position that 1 
did not object 5 and I could not object to it. 

By Mr. Ewart : 
Q. The letter stated that he was a worthy and honest man ? — A. That 
he esteemed him as such. 

By Mr. Stone: 

Q. Were you requested by Mr. Eoosevelt to have Mr. Shidy re-in- 
stated in the post-office at Milwaukee ? — A. I think not officially. I 
think that I recall a conversation with Mr. Eoosevelt in which he dep- 
recated the condition of things whereby a man who assisted the Civil 
Service Commission should be punished for it, and that he thought the 
man ought to be reinstated. 

Q. You say that you have no remembrance of a conversation with 
either of the other Commissioners at that time ? — A. I can not recall a 
conversation with either of the others in this case, except Mr. Eoose- 
velt; though it is possible that I did have. 

Q. Did Mr. Paul resign, or was he removed ? — A. We accepted his 
resignation, but notified him that it came at a time when we were con- 
sidering his removal, which we thought was justified by his conduct. 

Q. Did you read, while considering that report, the report made to 
the President by the Civil Service Commission ? 

Mr. Eoosevelt. Do you know that in that letter I say that his re- 
moval had been determined upon in consequence of a report of the post- 
office inspector, and a report of the Civil Service Commission ? 

The Witness. The removal had been determined upon. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. Can you not get that letter ? 

The Witness. Certainly. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. What I wanted to know was whether you were familiar with it by 
reason of the examination made in that Milwaukee post-office? — A. I 
knew generally of the matter at the Milwaukee post-office. 

Q. You were familiar with the facts which had been developed by the 
investigation made there ? — A. Certainly, and I examined the report of 
the inspector. 

Q. W^ith your knowledge of Mr. Shidy's action in this transaction 
from the reports made to you would you have been willing, on a request 
of the Civil Service Commission, to have directed his retention in that 
office? — A. The question never came before me. The question which 
was brought before me by the inspector was whether Mr. Paul was a 
proper man. That was the only question that came before me. 

Q. It has been said here in the testimony that you were requested by 
the Civil Service Commissioners to have Mr. Shidy retained in his place 
in the Milwaukee post-office, and that you declined to do it. Now you 
say, that you do not remember about that I — A. I do not remember the 



180 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

telegram which has been mentioned. It is possible that I may have 
read it. A telegram might not make an impression u]3on my mind. It 
is clear to me that if it had been isroper to have re-instated Mr. Shidy, 
that the order would have been given to do so, regardless of the request 
of Mr. Lyman and Mr. Thompson. We would have considered our way 
clear to do that. 

Q. They having requested it, and you having declined to yield to 
their request, do you not think your action was proper ? — A. I would 
have considered the request to take up the case, but it seemed to me 
that if he had been dismissed, the postmaster who had dismissed him 
was going out, and that it would have been improper to take any action 
at that time, but let the man who was coming in settle it. We have 
frequent cases of that kind. 

Q. Do you remember stating in your letter to Mr. Porter, Superin- 
tendent of the Census, that you would be pleased if Mr. Shidy were ap- 
pointed to a position in that office ■? — A. I have not the letter with me. 
I send four or five hundred letters a day, and it would be impossible to 
carry in my mind the terms of a letter; but on general principles I 
would say that I always express myself as pleased if employment is 
given to a person that Mr. Eoosevelt would recommend. 

Q. Knowing the purity of your life, public and private, I will put the 
question in this way : If at any time in the course of these interviews 
between you and Mr. Roosevelt, or Mr. Lyman, or Mr. Thompson, it had 
been stated to you that this man Shidy, for whom Mr. Roosevelt desired 
to secure a position in the Census Bureau, had been guilty of persistent 
violations of law, and had violated his oath of office — in other words 
had perjured himself, to use plain English, had mutilated the records, 
stuffed the list of eligibles, and all that, would you have felt justified in 
entertaining any request to give such a person a position in any De- 
partment 1 — A. I certainly should not. I should have regarded it my 
duty to have opposed the appointment of any such a man. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. All these facts which Mr. Ewart speaks of, in so far 
as he quotes them correctly, are in a report that we made to the Presi- 
dent of the United States on this matter. You had that report, and 
had acted upon it when I spoke to you, had you not ? 

The Witness. We had the report. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. And you had acted upon it, had you not *? 

The Witness. How do you mean "acted upon if?" 

Mr. Roosevelt. You referred to it as the reasons why the removal 
of Mr. Paul had been decided upon in your letter notifying Mr. Paul 
that you had accepted his resignation. If there is any doubt in your 
mind, you can produce the letter, I presume ? 

The Witness. The determination to remove Mr. Paul would be made 
upon the report of the post-office inspector. I can not say how much 
influence the report of the Civil Service Commission had upon me, inas- 
much as it was a "report made to the President, and I did not feel the 
same responsibility about it. In receiving a copy of it, I considered it 
a matter of courtesy merely, in a measure. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. Would you send a copy of the letter that jpn sent 
accepting the resignation of Mr. Paul ? My memory is very cl^r that 
in that letter you referred to this report. 

The Witness. I will furnish it with pleasure. 

By Mr. Hatton : 
Q. As a matter of fact, did not you order the removal on the report 
of the post-office inspector ? — A. It was because of the report of the 
post-office inspector. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 181 

Q. Did Mr. Roosevelt ever request you to remove Johnson, a member 
of the local board, who was a partner of Shidy in the matter of the 
manipulation of the eligible list ? 

Mr. LiND (interposing). That has been asked twice of the Postmaster- 
General. 

The Witness. I have already answered that question. 

ByMr. Hatton: 
Q. Of course you have power to order the removal of a clerk in the 
Post-Of&ce Department ? — A. I think so. 

By Mr. Butterworth : 
Q. If in your letter accepting the resignation of Mr. Paul you men- 
tioned the fact that your request for his resignation was predicated (if 
there was a request) upon the report of the inspector, and a report also 
of the Civil Service Commission, would not that indicate that you were 
familiar with the fact that this request had been from information de- 
rived from both sources ? — A. The letter will show what I said upon 
that point, and I will send a copy of it. 

TESTIM02JY OF HOK HUGH S. THOMPSON— Eecalled. 
Hon. Hugh S. Thompson, examination resumed. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Did you go with Mr. Lyman, after Shidy had been dismissed by 
the Milwaukee postmaster, to see the Postmaster-General and request 
that Shidy be re-instated ?— A. I went with him, I think, about the first 
of July. My recollection is that it was early in July, at least. My 
impression is also that it was to prevent the removal of Shidy. There 
were two telegrams received about it ; I think one stating that he was 
about to be removed, and another that he had been removed, and we 
wanted to stop it until the whole matter could be gotten before the 
Postmaster-General. Mr. Lyman and I went to see him one afternoon. 
That is the only conversation that I had with the Postmaster-General. 

Q. Did you discuss the matter of his re-instatement, or recommend 
the retention of Shidy ? — A. Yes, sir ; but not fully. The Postmaster- 
General declined to interfere. 

Q. What reason did he assign ? —A. I do not know that he gave any 
reason. I know that he stated, and from his manner he showed rather 
plainly, that he would not interfere. I think he said he had not seen 
our report. My recollection is that Mr. Lyman said to him, " We have 
sent you a copy of our report." We afterwards learned that there was 
a report sent to the Postmaster-General, but he had not received it. 

Q.' Did you approve of Mr. Eoosevelt's visit to Mr. Porter in the in- 
terest of Mr. Shidy ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you desire that he should receive this appointment 1 — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Why ? — A. Because I thought he had been unjustly punished for 
doing right. 

Q. Do you think now, after hearing his testimony, that he ought to 
be retained in that position "? — A. I do not think he ought to be re- 
tained in any position. 

Q. Why? — A. I think the manner and assurance of the man was 
something astounding. 

Q. Is there any material difference in the substance of what he said 
here yesterday, and what he said to you gentlemen ? — A. Not as to the 



182 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

wrong-doing ; but yesterday he undertook to explain, if not to justify, 
the wrong- doing. Before us he was humble, and begged for forgive- 
ness. Here he practically admitted that under similar circumstances 
he would do what he had already done at Milwaukee ; and said that if 
called upon to make false certifications, he would do it. That is not 
the kind of a man that 1 thought I was trying to help. 

Mr. Lyman. I agree fully with the statements that my colleagues 
have made this morning. 

TESTIMOITY OF JOHN T. DOYLE. 

John T. Doyle, sworn and examined. 
By the Chairman : 

Q. Did Mr. Shidy put every facility in your way for ascertaining the 
truth when you were in Milwaukee *? — A. He did. . He laid all the books 
and paj)ers before me at the first investigation, June 29, 1888. He laid 
the records before me, and fully gave every explanation asked, and 
offered facilities for the examination. There was no hesitation or con- 
cealment. 

Mr. Roosevelt. His conduct was in marked contrast with that of 
Johnson ? 

The Witness. I saw Mr. Johnson after I had got from Shidy the 
records and an explanation of ^the manner in which the work had been 
done. My interview with Johnson was brief, and confirmed the state- 
ment of Dr. Shidy. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. What was the date of your first visit to Milwaukee ? — A. June 
29, 1888. 

Q. Did you ascertain on tiiat first visit the facts which have since 
been developed ? — A. I did. 

Q. Fully 1 — A. Quite so ; all the record disclosed. 

Q. Did Shidy make any confession to you at that time ?— A. He said 
to me at that time substantially what he said to the committee yester- 
day. 

Q. When you returned did you make a report ? — A. I made a report 
in writing of my investigation. 

Q. Did you state the condition of affairs ? — A. I did. An extract 
from my report appears in these papers. 

Q. What was then done about it ? — A. Major Webster and myself 
were directed to visit the office, take testimony, and make a statement 
concerning the matter. 

Q. How did you happen to go there in the first place ? — A. I was 
sent out there to visit twenty-eight post-offices and investigate gener- 
ally into the conduct of the work of those offices. 

Q. You had no knowledge of these irregularities prior to that visit f — 
A. None. 

Q. After your return, when you made this report, you and Major 
Webster were sent by the Commission to make a full investigation ? — 
A. We were. The report of Major Webster is here before you. My 
recollection is that we returned about the 1st of November, 1888. 

Q. Was any action taken on that report ? — A. The report was laid 
before the Commission. 

Q. Who constituted the Commission then 1 — A. Mr. Edgerton and 
Mr. Lyman. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 183 

Q. When did Mr. Edgerton go out of the Commission ? — A. Mr. 
Edgerton left the Commission, I believe, in February — the 9th of Feb- 
ruary, 1889. 

Q. Do you know from your connection "with this Commission why no 
action was taken on that report ? — A. I do not, further than the fact 
that the Commission had an immense amount of work, far more than 
the force could admit of its full performance. 

Mr. BuTTERWORTH. It had no work more important than this, if this 
thoroughly rotten condition of affairs existed. 

The Witness. If the Commission was fully informed of its gravity. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Were the Commissioners here in Washington at that time, from 
November to February, when Mr. Edgerton went out*?— A. The Com- 
missioners were not all the time in Washington. 

Q. They were generally here ? — A. Generally, yes, sir ; to the best 
of my recollection. 

Q. This matter was laid before them ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the date of the appointment of Commissioners Eoose- 
velt and Thompson ?— A. May 10, 1889. 

Q. When was this matter laid before them ? — A. I do not know, sir. 

Mr. EoosBVELT. I believe it was laid before us the first of June. 

By Mr. Butterworth : 

Q. You returned from Milwaukee about the first of E'ovember? — A. 
About the first of November. 

Q. And with a knowledge of the disclosures made there *? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And no action was taken until after the advent of Messrs. Eoose- 
velt and Thompson "? — A. No action that I am aware of. 

Q. Of course it is one of your duties after making a tour to report 
irregularities that may have come under your observation ? — A. It is ; 
and that duty was performed. 

Q. That is the end of your duty in that particular ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Yours ended and theirs began ? — A. Yes, sir. 



TESTIMONY OE CHARLES LYMAN— Ilecalled. 

Charles Lyman, recalled and further examined. 
By Mr, Butterworth: 

Q. I would like to ask Mr. Lyman why no action was taken by the 
Commission between November and the date of the action by the new 
Commission 1 — A. The investigation which resulted in these disclosures 
was made early in September. I think Major Webster and Mr. Doyle re- 
turned from Milwaukee about the 10th of September. I was anxious at 
that time that the matter should receive prompt consideration, and urged 
Major Webster for a preparation of his report at the earliest possible 
date, so that the Commission might have it in order to take action. 
There was a great pressure of work upon the Commission, and, as you 
have observed, there was considerable involved in the preparation of 
that report. I have reason to believe that Major Webster proceeded 
with the preparation of this report as rapidly as he consistently could, 
with the performance of his other duties in the Commission. I think 
this report is dated the 30th of October, the investigation having been 
early in September. It came to the Commission, if I remember cor- 



184 CIVIL SEE VICE INVESTIGATION. 

rectly, on the 11th of ]S"ovember, or I -will say about the first of Kovem- 
ber. It was dated the 30th of October. It may have been a day or 
two after that before it came to the Commission. I left Washington 
on the day before the Presidential election, to vote. The election was 
held on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. On my 
return, having been gone three days I think, this report was before the 
Commission. Mr. Edgerton, who was then a Commissioner, did not re- 
turn until some days after that. He was in Indiana at the time of the 
Presidential election. I do not remember just how soon he returned, 
but it was some days after 1 returned. As soon as he returned, I called 
his attention to the report and suggested that immediate action was 
desirable on this report. 

In the meantime, between the time when the investigation was made 
and the time when the report was completed I submitted it to the Com- 
mission. Commissioner Oberly having been appointed Commissioner 
of Indian Affairs had gone out of the Commission and Mr. Edgerton and 
myself remained on the Commission. At the first opportunity after Mr. 
Edgerton returned to Washington I brought to his attention this report 
and asked for its consideration. He said he could not attend to it then 
but would consider it soon, as I remember, or something to that effect. 
Some days passed and I felt nervous and uncomfortable about it. I did 
not wish the report to remain unacted upon and I again called his at- 
tention to it. He gave some excuse, and I repeatedly thereafter called 
his attention to this report with the view of getting action upon it, but 
I could never secure his co-operation for action upon that report. In 
the meantime I had received an order from the President which involved 
a great stress of work and which required not only the utmost amount 
of labor which I was capable of giving it during office hours but far into 
the night. In that condition of affairs this report was not acted upon. 
Mr. Edgerton persistently neglected to co-operate with me in any ac- 
tion upon it. 

-By Mr. Stone: 
Q. Eufusing to do so ?— A. If that neglect after his attention was 
repeatedly called to it was refusal then he did refuse. 

Q. Did' you carry it to the attention of the president himself? — A. I 

did not. 

Q. Why ? — A. I did not feel that under the circumstances the offenses 
which had been brought to light by the investigation, and the question 
being a punishment to be meted out to the guilty, that it was my duty, 
in view of the fact that I was not the sole Commissioner. 

Q. Soon after that you became the sole Commissioner, did you not ? 
Did you consider that you had authority then to take action in this 
matter 1 — A. I presume I had. 

Q. But you did not ?— A. I did not. 

Q. Why not"? — A. I do not know that that matter impressed my 
mind at that time. I do not think I formulated in my mind the reason 
why. During all this time the pressure of the work of the office was 
simply overwhelming. I was burdened with an amount of labor and 
responsibility which was almost crushing. 

By Mr. Butterworth : 
Q. Who was the ranking Commissioner when you came in ?— A. Mr. 
Edgerton was president of the Commission. 

Q. And he was exclusively the head of the office ?— A. Yes, sir. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 185 

TESTIMONY OF HUGH S, THOMPSON— Recalled. 

Hugh S. Thompson recalled and further examined. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
never saw this report or had an opportunity to read this report until 
the morning of the day on which I went to Milwaukee with other work. 
That morning I borrowed the papers from my colleagues for the pur- 
pose of reading them. I read, as I recollect, the preliminary report of 
Major Webster. I did not read the testimony of Mr. Paul or Shidy. 1 
did not know what Mr. Shidy had testified to when we got to Milwaukee. 

Mr. Lyman. One reason why I desired especially the co-operation of 
my colleague on the commission in the consideration of this report was 
that in reading it I discovered serious conflict in the testimony itself, 
and 1 did not feel that I could take the responsibility of acting upon a 
report in which there was such serious conflicting testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. OBERLY— Eeealled. 

Hon. John H. Obbrlt recalled and further examined. 

Mr. Oberlt. Mr Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I wish 
to state that at the time my attention was first called to the condition 
of affairs in the Milwaukee post-ofiice by the report of the secretary, 
Mr. Doyle, after his return from the investigation of custom-houses 
and post-offices in the West — that was, I think, in August or before — 
the statement of the condition of affairs there led me to believe that 
there ought to be a more thorough investigation than he has been able 
to make, and 1 consulted with Commissioner Lyman upon the matter, 
and we both concluded that an investigation, more thorough than Mr. 
Doyle had been able to make, ought to take place. Shortly after our 
consultation we determined to send an examiner who was familiar with 
such matters to Milwaukee to go into a more deliberate investigation, 
and make a more thorough report. And I went to see the President of 
the United States, and reported what had been said of the condition 
of affairs at that post-office. Mr. Cleveland expressed his astonishment, 
and said that Mr. Paul had been appointed for one reason, because he 
was a man who believed in the principles of civil service reform, and 
a man who was, I think, secretary of some civil service association in 
Milwaukee. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. I think he was president of a local civil service as- 
sociation. It was a '' happy family" up there. 

The Witness. The President thought Mr. Paul was a man whose 
character was respected and esteemed in his community, and he was 
astonished that such reports should be made of the conduct of the ofBce, 
particularly with reference to the execution of the civil service law and 
rules. But he said that it was proper a thorough investigation should 
be made as speedily as possible, so that the facts might be ascertained 
and action taken. This conversation I reported to Mr. Lyman. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. About what time was that ? — A. That was some time before these 
gentlemen went out, a week or two, I think. That is my recollection 
about it. It may have been longer. It was soon after Mr. Lyman and 
I had this conversation. I remember that at first it was discussed as 
to which member of the Commission should go, and I had expressed 
my willingness to do so. About this tiaDe I was nominated Commis- 
sioner of Indian Affairs, and my attention was divided between the 
two offices, so I declined. 

Commissioner Thompson to ex-Commissioner Oberly. Let me sug- 



186 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

gest what you said to President Cleveland, that there was some one in 
the office who had the information and was afraid to give it. 

The Witness. My understanding was that these offenses had been 
going on for a considerable time. Mr. Doyle had ascertained these ir- 
regularities by an examination of the books, and, being an expert him- 
self, the secretary, Mr. Shidy, nor any other member of the board could 
well have concealed from him the facts. And in the conversation that 
was had at the time it was said that Mr. Paul was domineering the per- 
sons in the office, and they were afraid of their positions if they were 
not complaisant and obedient to his will. In my conversation with the 
President, I said there was probably some fear on the part of employes 
there that testimony given freely might operate to their disadvantage 
and result in their dismissal. The President said that the investigation 
should go on, and that no person in the post-office should be disturbed 
for any performance of duty or the exposure of any wrong-doing that 
had been done there. 

By Mr. Ewart : 

Q. Did you read Major Webster's re'porf? — A. No, sir; because it 
was not made. I read Mr. Doyle's report. 

The Chaieman. I understand that when Mr. Oberly was in the Com- 
mission the investigation was ordered, and before the report was made 
he was out of the commission? 

The Witness. Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster went out to Milwaukee, 
and returned about the 15th of September. 1 was still in office. Major 
Webster went there and found a pretty bad state of affairs — that the 
law was being systematically disregarded. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. When did you leave the Commission? — A. On the 10th of October. 
We asked Major Webster to prejjare this report so that we might form- 
ally consider it. 

Q. But the report was made after you left the office! — A. It was 
made after I left the office, and I had no opportunity of acting upon it 
further. Mr. Lyman had gone away from the city upon an examina- 
tion tour. 

Mr. Lyman. I left on the 24th of September. Mr. Oberly had been 
Commissioner of Indian Affairs several days when I returned. 

The Witness. Before taking that office, I divided my attention be- 
tween the two places. 

By Mr. Ewart : 
Q. After reading Mr. Doyle's report, did you think that the Commis- 
sioners were iustitied in extending i^rotection to Shidy, he giving no 
additional evidence ?— A. No. I do not think there was any necessity 
for extending protection to him. He could not have concealed any facts. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. T. H. B. BROWNE. 

Monday, 31arch 3, 1890. 
Hon. T. H. B. Browne, sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Where do you reside ?— A. At Accomac Court-House, in the First 
Congressoual district of Virginia. 

Q. What is your business ?— A, I am a member of Congress and a 
lawyer. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Miss Emily Dabuey ?— A. I am. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 187 

Q. Please state to the committee what is her general reputation. — A. 
I have known Miss Dabney, I think, since the spring of 1888. I have 
known the family a long time. She has a sister who resides in my dis- 
trict, and is postmistress of Spottsylvania Court-House. She held the 
office during Mr. Cleveland's administration and she still holds it. The 
family is a very old one. The father of this lady was a clerk of our 
court for a number of years, and, I think, died since the war. From 
what I know of the character of her people generally, they are as good 
as any in the State of Virginia. 

Q. Do you believe she is truthful ? — A. She is a woman of good char- 
acter, perfectly good character. Senator Daniels had recommended 
her for appointment in the Government service, and if he were here I 
am quite well satisfied he would corroborate my statement. I think 
that politics has nothing to do with it, but they are all Democrats. 

TESTIMOlfY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT— Recalled. 

Theodore Eoosevelt, recalled and further examined. 

Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
wish to make a statement in reference to Mr. Wanamaker's testimony 
before this committee on Saturday, with your permission. So much 
latitude has been given to the other side and for the reason that I have 
sent a copy of this to Mr. Wanamaker, I desire to read from this 
printed matter. 

(See Exhibit D.) 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES LYMAN— Recalled. 

Charles Lyman recalled and further examined : 

Mr. Lyman. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, when 
the Postmaster-General was on the stand on Saturday I asked him if 
he remembered of Governor Thompson and myself calling upon him, 
and he said he may have done so, but he did not recall the incident. I 
desire to make this statement confirmatory of what has already been 
said. On Saturday, the 29th of June, I received a telegram from Doc- 
tor Shidy stating that he believed he would be removed from office on 
the next daj. On the 1st of July, which was Monday, we received 
another telegram from Doctor Shidy, 1 am not certain what was the 
date, Sunday or Monday, stating that he had been removed. Late in 
the afternoon Mr. Thompson and myself went to see the Postmaster- 
General, and found hiui in his office, and we said to him that we had 
received two telegrams, and asked him whether anything could be done 
in this matter. The Postmaster-General replied that he could no noth- 
ing at that time ; that the matter having been reported to the President 
was iDractically out of his hands at that time. Upon that statement 
we withdrew. Nothing further of material character occurred at that 
interview. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. I understand that you went to see the Postmaster-General with 
the view of having Shidy re-instated *? — A. That was our purpose in case 
we should be clear on the subject. 

Q. You stated your purpose ? — A. We stated that Shidy had been 
removed, according to the telegrams which the Postmaster-General 
read, and we asked him whether, in view of the fact that he was evi- 



188 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

dently being persecuted for what he had told the Commission, he could 
not in some way be protected either by his reinstatement then or at a 
later date. 

Q. Did you give the Postmaster-General to understand that you de- 
sired or thought it was a proper thing for Shidy to be re-instated ? — 
A. The purpose we had in view was simply to call the attention of the 
Postmaster-General to the matter and leave it to his judgment. We 
did not press it. 

Q. And he declined to interfere *? — A. He declined to interfere. 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. This man Shidy had, at the solicitation of the Commission, testi- 
fied as to the workings of the civil-service system in that post-office, 
and had disclosed irregularities which be said had been committed by 
direction of Mr. Paul. Did you not bring these facts to the attention 
of the Postmaster-General that Shidy had testified as to these irregu- 
larities and in consequence Paul had removed him from office? — 
A. Several days before the visit of Governor Thompson and myself 
the report of the Commission had been in the hands of the Postmaster- 
General. 

Q. I want to know whether you verbally called this to the attention 
of the Postmaster-General *? — A, Yes, sir ; we did. 

Q. Please state whether or not you expressed a desire to the Post- 
master-General that Shidy should not be discharged. — A. We under- 
stood he had been discharged. 

Q. You immediately called to see the Postmaster-General and sub- 
mitted the matter to his judgment, making no suggestion of your 
own ? — A. We stated that Shidy should not be punished for having 
given the Commission information. 

The Chairman. Did you practically recommend his re-instatement? 

The Witness. I do not think we made any recommendation. 

By Mr. BoATNER : 
Q. Was it not your object to obtain his re-instatement 1 — A. Unques- 
tionably it was our object to call the attention of the Postmaster-Gen- 
eral to the matter, and if practicable to secure his re-instatement. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Did you recommend that he be given some other place 1 — A. We 
went there to bring this matter to the attention of the Postmaster-Gen- 
eral with the view of having him re-instated if practicable. 

Q. Did you so state to the Postmaster-General ? — A. Not in precisely 
that form. The Postmaster- General at once impressed Governor Thomp- 
son and myself with the idea that this matter at that moment was not 
in his possession in such a shape that he could act upon it, and we did 
not pres» the matter beyond that point. 

By Mr. Stone: 

Q. Have you gentlemen of the Commission had any conference with 
Mr. Shidy since this examination began 1 — A. I have seen Shidy once 
since the examination began. 

Q. Where did you see him "? — A. In my office. 

Q. Did you gentlemen of the Commission send for him to come to 
your office, or did you not write a letter to the Superintendent of the 
Census asking that Shidy be sent down to your office ? — A. I have not 
written such a letter. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. I did. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 189 

Q. Did. he go down to your office in response to that request *? — A. I 
believe he did. 

Q. Did you see him? — A. I think I saw him, but the interview was 
between Shidy and Mr. Eoosevelt and Mr. Thompson. 

Q. Did you take part in it 1 — Not of any consequence. 

Q. Did you hear the interview 1 — A. ISo, sir ; 1 think not. 

Q. Did you know for what purpose he was sent for? — A. I shall be 
obliged if you will ask Mr. Eoosevelt that question, as he sent for Mr. 
Shidy. 

By the Chairman : 
Q. Do you not know ? — A. I believe that he was sent for ; in fact, I 
thmk I may state that I know he was sent for to confer in regard to the 
Milwaukee matter. 

By Mr. Stone: 
Q. ^o ascertain what his testimony would be before this committee? — 
A. Mr. Shidy desired to read over the testimony he had given at Mil- 
waukee, and he was permitted to do so. 

TESTIMONY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT— Recalled. 

Theodore Eoosevelt recalled and further examined. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: 
After Mr. Ewart had made the attempt to see Shidy's testimony, I wrote 
at the suggestion of Governor Thompson to Mr. Porter to let Shidy 
come down there, and he came down and I recollect perfectly what was 
said to him. I said : " Mr. Shidy, you are certain to be cross-examined 
and their purpose will be to threaten and confuse you, and we want 
you to try and give your answers clearly. I want you to testify to the 
exact truth." 

I said to Shidy: '' They are going to try to bully and confuse you and 
try to make you contradict yourself." I said : " Try to be cool aud clear 
and testify to the exact truth." I do not know whether I said "1 want 
you to tell the exact truth " or not, but one or two gentlemen who have 
been witnesses here have tried to benefit their cases by telling a little 
more than was true, and making it lean on their side. I think if Camp- 
bell had stuck to the exact story, which was undoubtedly the truth 
as Mr. Oberly rej)eated it in his testimony, Campbell would have been 
clear. 1 do not believe that Campbell ever had prepared those papers 
in the manner he stated, but I think he had an idea that he was going 
to get some benefit. 

By Mr. Hatton (to Mr. Thompson) : 

Q. Did I understand you to say that you accompanied Mr. Eoosevelt 
to Milwaukee when he went there to investigate the post-oflice ? — A. I 
did. 

Q. At what time of the day did you reach Milwaukee?— A. About 
2 o'clock. 

Q. Do you remember what officer you called on first ? — A. Mr. Paul, 
is my recollection. 

Q. Did you state to Mr. Paul the object of the visit of the Commis- 
sion ? — A. I really do not remember now ; I think we did. 

Q. After calling on Mr. Paul and telling him the object of your visit, 
what other officer did you see?— A. We saw Shidy and Johnson. I 
do not think we saw any others. 



190 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Did you state to those gentlemen the object of your visit ? — A. I 
think we did, sir ; this is my recollection about it, but I am not posi- 
tive. We examined carefully the records of the office. 

Q. Did you state to any members of the local board of examiners 
where you obtained the information on which you proposed to make the 
investigation ? — A. Not at that time. 

Q. Did you examine the other members of the local board f — A. We 
wanted to examine Fahsel, but he could not be found. 

Q. Did you examine any of the examining board except Shidy ? — A. 
We examined Mr. Johnson. 

Q. Did you examine him fully in regard to it ? — A. I think so. We 
got all he would tell. He was a reluctant witness. 

Q. Have you got any record of the evidence that you got from John- 
son ? — A. We had no stenographer and no attempt was made to take it 
down. 

Q. Why? — A. My purpose was to see whether Fahsel, Johnsoil, and 
Paul would confirm the statements which were in the report of Web- 
ster and Doyle. 

Q. How did you get Shidy's testimony since you did not have it taken 
in shorthand ? — A. No testimony was taken in shorthand by the Com- 
mission. 

Q. You examined Shidy and Johnson, and did you not examine Paul 
at the same time"? — A. We asked him a great many questions how it 
occurred, and all that. 

Q. Did you object to Mr. Paul making a statement ? — A. We made 
not the slightest objection to that. 

Q. When was Shidy's testimony completed 1 — A. Not until the next 
morning. 

Q. How long were you in Milwaukee during the next day — A. I think 
we left a little after midday. 

Q. Did you speak to Mr. Paul about the nature of the testimony se- 
cureti from Shidy? — A. No, sir; except in this way: When we called 
Sbidy and Johnson, there was some conflict betwen the postmaster and 
Johnson as to the re-marking of papers. 

Q. At any time before you recommended the removal of Paul did you 
give him an opportunity to see the testimony on which you based your 
conclusions ? — A. We did not. When we examined him upon the evi- 
dence we called his attention to certain statements and he made his ex- 
planation. 

Q. Has it been the practice of the Commission in cases where charges 
have been preferred and you have taken testimony and reached a con- 
clusion on the testimony, have you notified the postmaster of the nature 
of the charges against him ? — A. I do not recall anything at all to be the 
practice. Sometimes clerks have written to us about charges against 
postmasters, and in that case we would write to the postmaster and ask 
for an explanation. 

Q. I mean in important charges such as this, where it would be such 
a serious matter, what was your custom ? — A. We have never had any 
of a like gravity. No postmaster has ever been reported by us for re- 
moval. 1 n regard to this Shidy matter, he came to my office two or three 
times before this examination and made some statements in reference 
to this Milwaukee matter. Mr. Uoosevelt wrote to him at my request 
and asked him to come down. He wanted to refresh his memory about 
the matters he had testified to in Milwaukee. 1 told him that all he 
had to do was to keep cool and tell the truth. 

,Q. Have you seen Jiim since f— r-A. He api^roached me the other day. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 191 

Q. Have you any objection to statiug whether or not you have seen 
Shidy since he has given his testimony here *? — A. Yes, sir ; he called 
on me next morniug. Shall I state what occurred? I told him, "I 
think your testimony made an impression. I never heard such a lot of 
fine-spun theories of ethics and morals as you gave to the committee 
the other day." 

Mr. KooSEVELT. I told him, " I do not care to talk to you alone any 
more. You have cut your own throat." 

By Mr. Hatton : 
Q. Have you recommended the removal of Shidy, having recom- 
mended him as a very superior man in the first instance ? — A. That I 
deny. 

Q. I will withdraw the "superior" part. Have the Commissioners 
recommended his removal ? — A. Kone whatever, and I do not propose 
to. 

By Mr. BoATNER : 

Q You heard Mr. Lyman's testimony with reference to the interview 
with the Postmaster-General. State whether or not you concur in this 
statement. — A. I recall some things. I remember distinctly that we 
stated that we wanted to prevent the removal of Shidy until the Post- 
master-General could have all the facts before him. We informed him 
that a copy of our report had been sent to him, and we afterwards 
learned that it had been received at the Department, but the Post- 
master General had not seen it. Tbe Postmaster-General expressed, if 
not iu words, by his manner, that he was not exactly satisfied with the 
Milwaukee matter. He said : " Gentlemen, how do you know that I 
am not investigating that matter*? You introduce confusion into the 
service." We told him that the civil service rules and law required 
that we should investigate all violations of the law. He said : " Ihave 
sometimes had as many as five hundred men under me." 1 think he 
said the number was five hundred, " and if some outside man came in 
there and interfered, it would destroy the discipline of the men and I 
could not carry on my business." I said, " I do not think this is a par- 
allel case." The motive in my mind was to have him hold up this mat- 
ter until it could be thoroughly laid before him. 

TESTIMONY OF GEOEGE H. PAUL. 

George H. Paul sworn and examined. 

By the Chairman : 
Q. What is your full name '? — A. George H. Paul. 
Q. You are a resident of Milwaukee ? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Formerly postmaster there 1 — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. EwART : 

Q. How long have you been a resident of Wisconsin ? — A. For the 
last forty years. 

Q. Did you ever hold any public position besides postmaster at Mil- 
waukee"? — A. I have held public positions always continuously. 

Q. What positions 1 — A. I was postmaster at Kenosha, Wis., and 
was mayor of that city and postmaster for eight years there, and at 
Burlington, Vt., previously. I have been a member of the legislature 
for many years. 

Q. Have yoq hej(i any local positions in Milwaukee? — A. Yes, sir: 



192 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

I was superintendent of the schools and president of the board of re- 
gents of the State 'University for sixteen years. 

Q. How were those places selected ? — A. Appointed by the governor 
each three years. 

Q. Confirmed by the senate ? — A. Ko, sir ; not confirmed by the sen- 
ate. My appointment was made at the unanimous request of the sen- 
ate, however. 

Q. You have held other places? — A. Yes, sir; many others. I do 
not care to enumerate all the places I have held. I was railroad com- 
missioner of the State at onetime under what was called the Potter law. 

Q. Appointed by the governor ? — A. Yes, sir ; and confirmed by the 
senate. 1 was a member of the commission about three years, I think. 

Q. When were you appointed postmaster ? — A. In May, 1885. 

Q. By whom ? — A. By President Cleveland. 

Q. When would your term of office expire under that commission ? 
I believe you were appointed for four years? — A. The commission com- 
menced after confirmation by the Senate. That commission would have 
expired in the month of February this year. 

Q. Had the four years for which you were appointed expired when 
you left the office? — A. I took the jjosition on June 1, 1885, and had 
held the ofiice until June 1, 1889. Preceding that date I practically re- 
signed the office before the visit of the Commission by requesting my 
successor to be named, and at that time also I made my resignation under 
an arrangement with the Eepresentative in Congress to forward my 
resignation at the time he forwarded the name of my successor. 

Q. That was Mr. Van Schaick?— A. That was Mr. Van Schaick. 
That was my volunteer motion. I did not wish to continue in office. 

Q. On whose recommendation were you appointed postmaster? — A. 
On the recommendation of the entire State nearly. 

Q. Were you appointed when Mr. Vilas was Postmaster-General? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

. By Mr. Stone : 

Q. At the time of your appointment were you not connected with some 
local civil-service association ? — A. Yes, sir; I have always been con- 
nected with the civil-service from the origin of the system. I was vice- 
president, and I think I am still. 

Q. Vice-j)resident of what? — A. Of the civil-service association of 
that locality. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Was it State or local ? — A. I think it is State, but I am not positive 
about that. I have always acted with it. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Hamilton Shidy ? — A. I do not 
know whether I know Mr. Shidy or not. I have had plenty of oppor- 
tunities of knowing him. 

Q. He was a subordinate of yours ? — A. In one sense he was. He 
was clerk. 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. Which part of Shidy are you questioning this witness about ? 

Mr. Hatton. I think the Hyde part. 

Q. He was secretary of the local board of examiners? — A. Yes, sir. 
I would like to bring out the construction of that board of examiners. 

Q. I would like you to state what are the full duties of the board of 
examiners, and I desire to know whether the committee have any ob- 
jection? 



CIVIL SEE VICE INVESTIGATION. 193 

The Chairman. I do not see auy objection to the question. 

Q. As postmaster of an office which was working under the civil- 
service law, I will ask you what were your ideas of the duties of the 
local hoard of examiners ? — A. I do not precisely understand your 
question, 

Q, As a postmaster, working under the civil-service law (some officers 
are not under the law), what is your idea of the duties of the local 
board of examiners ? — A. I will say what I think the question intends. 
I understand the board of examiners of an office to be the representa- 
tives of the Commission. That they in fact are the Commission as to 
that locality. That is my construction. If you will permit me to state, 
I will say no recommendation or change in the board was ever made by 
me. Two of the members of the board, both Eepublicans— Captain 
Johnson and Mr. Shidy — remained from the beginning until nearly the 
end of my administration. Their duties were discharged independent 
of myself as postmaster, as is well known in the city of Milwaukee. 
The third member of the board besides Mr. Johnson and Mr. Shidy 
when I came in was Dr. Kaine, of the Milwaukee Sentinel, and after I 
went into office Mr. Fahsel, superintendent of the money-order division, 
was suggested in place of Mr. Kaine. He was for a considerable time 
a prominent member of the city school board. Both Johnson and Fah- 
sel, if the committee will permit me to say it, are men of high reputa- 
tion. Shidy was a stranger in the city. Johnson had been in the serv- 
ice, at the head of the mailing division, over twenty-five years. He 
was, perhaps, one of the best known men in connection with the serv- 
ice in the country. Mr. Johnson was president of the board j Shidy 
was secretary, and Fahsel was the third man. 

Q. How many employes were there at the Milwaukee post-office at 
the time you took charge ? — A. One hundred and fifty to 160. 

Q. How many post-office employes are subject to the civil-service 
law ? — A. I could not give you the exact figures, but something more 
than one-half. 

Q. At the time you took charge of the office did you make pretty 
general removals of clerks not embraced in the classified list ? — A. jSTo, 
sir; I ^ have a statement here of the exact number removed since my 
term began. 

Q. How many removals did you make during your incumbency of the 
office ? — A. I think [referring to statement] the Milwaukee office has 
been found from the records to stand at the head of all of the offices in 
the country in that respect. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. How do you mean ? — A. I mean the removals are less than they 
are in any office of the same size in the United States. 

Mr. Andrew. Do you mean since the organization of the office. 

The Chairman. He means from the beginning of his administration 
that the removals in his office have been less than in any other office of 
the same size. 

By Mr. Hatton : 
Q. Froiji what records did you secure that information that the Mil- 
waukee office stands at the head of the list, so far as the observance 
of the civil-service law is concerned ? — A. I got it from various sources. 
The reports of the Civil Service Commission are very limited upon that 
point. The last report, 1888, will show a comparative statement of re- 
movals for a year and a half, I think, preceding July, 1887 or 1888. In 
that case, I think, the Milwaukee office stands at the head, as I cou- 
3117—13 



194 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

strue it, and the New York Times published a statement giving all the 
offices under the civil, service in the United States, or nearly all, and 
the Milwaukee office, according to my construction, was the least liable 
to censure. The changes of clerks in the Milwaukee post-office, not in- 
cluding civil-service places, I mean those not classified, from June 1, 
1885, to August 23, 1887, was twenty-seven. Of these changes there 
were six removals, all for specific causes. 

Q. Were there any for political causes ? — A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Andeew : 

Q. In what length of time 1 — A. From June 1, 1885, to August 23, 
1887. 

Q. Was that in the unclassified service ? — A. That was in the clas- 
sified service. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. How many clerks did you have 1 — A. I could give them, but the 
removals in the unclassified service are generally considered as a basis 
for an estimate. 

Mr. Andrew. What proportion of the unclassified service is thirty- 
seven ? Is it the entire service ? 

Mr. LiND. This is only a portion of the number. Would it not be 
more satisfactory for you to give the changes in the entire number ? 
This is only from June 1, 1885, to August 23, 1887. 

Mr. Andrew. I am talking about ttie unclassified service. 

The Witness. There are sixty clerks in the office, of which more 
than half are classified. They come under the civil service. They are 
all under the supervision of the civil service. 

Q. I thought these thirty- seven were outside of the civil-service 
rules. — A. The unclassified clerks are not subject to the i)rovisions of 
the civil- service law. In the case of unclassified clerks, selections are 
not required. There is a popular impression that clerks are exempt 
from the provisions of the civil-service law, but that is erroneous, as I 
understand it. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. For instance, a clerk who is selling stamps is not required to be 
under the civil service law. — A. He is on the unclassified list. 

Q. How many are exempt in your office out of the sixty? — A. There 
are many men in many occupations. For instance, the register office 
and the money-order office are not in the classified service because the 
postmaster is responsible for them. There are some others in the office 
for which the postmaster is financially responsible, as, for instance, the 
money-order department. 

By Mr. Andrew : 

Q. I understood you to say you have in your office about thirty in 
the unclassified service ; there are sixty in all, and about one-half are 
in the unclassified service. You say also that in the period you have 
mentioned you made thirty seven changes. — A. This includes the period 
from June, 1885, more than two years. 

Q. In more than two years you made thirty-seven changes ? — A. I 
made thirty-seven changes. If you will allow me I will give the causes 
of the changes and I think it will throw some light on this question. 
The causes of the changes were, resignations, sixteen — and I wish to 
make a remark here that the resignations were not invited in any case 
but one. On one occasion I advised a man to resign for his own sake. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 195 

TFio removals were six, additional appointments seven, transfers three, 
and olficcs abolished fourteen. 

Mr, Andrew. That is in the unclassified service. 

The Witness. That is the unclassified service. 1 have here also the 
classified service. The changes in that were, promotions three, resig- 
nations twenty-nine, removals six, additional appointments eight, trans- 
fers four, and abolished four. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. How many resignations were there altogether? — A. Twenty- 
nine. 

Q. Do you mean to state to this committee that during your term of 
office forty-five gentlemen resigned and left the employment of the 
Government ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. For business reasons, or what ? — A. Yes, sir ; for business reasons. 
I wish the committee to distinctly understand that the compensation of 
clerks is so poor and the labor so hard, in our western offices particularly, 
where we have a rapidly increasing population, that the clerks will not 
remain in those offices for any great length of time. They are generally 
anxious to get in, but they are soon anxious to get out and go into other 
business. A qualified man will always resign. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. During the term of your office as postmaster, did you ever have 
charge of the record book or certification papers of the secretary of the 
local board ?— A. No, sir ; never in any way. 

Q. Have you read the testimony of Mr. Shidy ? — A. I glanced over it 
hurriedly as I saw it in your paper. 

Q. Are you aware of the fact that he charges all false certifications, 
and all violations of law that he did as secretary of the examining board 
to you ? — A. I am aware of the fact that he charges all his errors, and 
I will call them blunders for such they were, upon my intimidation. 

Q. Did you ever assist Shidy in making false certifications °? — A. JSTo, 
sir. 

Q. Did you ever assist him in remarking examination papers ? — A. 
Never. Perhaps I ought to explain that last answer by saying that on 
one occasion some papers were remarked. They were remarked, and 
the occasion of that remarking was a fact unconnected with the iDublic 
service as everybody knows, and unconnected with myself in particu- 
lar. That remarking was originally erroneous and I will state further 
with regard to that, that the matter was considered by the entire board 
of examiners and a new marking was ordered. I recognize the fact 
that the marking which had been made was apparently unjust. I will 
say further in addition to the explanation I gave the Commission at the 
time with regard to that which I had forgotten at the time, that that 
marking of those papers as I am now informed, was made not by the 
board but by one individual alone, and that the board considered it en- 
tirely improper^ The only real suggestion I made was to Mr. Shidy, 
and it was to this effect, that if he had ever improperly marked those 
papers that he should state all the facts as they occurred, to the Com- 
mission, and ask its approval, and under no other circumstances. 

Perhaps I ought to complete what I have to say about it. The board 
came together of its own accord to consider the whole question of 
the original marking by one member of the board. It came to the con- 
clusion, without any suggestion from me, that the marking was not 
quite right by a fraction. Q^hey changed that accordingly, I think, 
before. the marking went on record. I had no part in that remarking 



196 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

at all. When the Commissioners asked me about this case they took me 
by surprise. Commissioner Koosevelt had great difficulty in remem- 
bering the names. I finally ascertained the name of the gentleman. 
I knew that there was a charge of interference with the proper author- 
ity of the board in the case, but there never was. I suggested to Shidy 
to send immediately to the Commission a statement of the facts of the 
remarking and ask for its aj^proval under the rules, and he requested 
me to give him in full a memorandum of what I thought proper to say 
in such a case on the ground that he assumed I could better prepare 
such a memorandum than he could, and I did that, and the first sen- 
tence, according to my recollection, that I suggested was simply that 
the board of its own motion entirely had acted on it. I did not 
want it understood that I had anything to do with the matter in the 
way of controlling the board. 

Q. Did you ever in any way assist Shidy as secretary of the local 
board of examiners in stuffing the list of eligibles and making them 
" round and full ?" — A. No, sir ; I never did in any case influence Shidy 
and I want to make a full response to that, that I never in any way in- 
fluenced Shidy in the discharge of his duties improperly in any case. 
I wish to make that broad denial that the whole thing is purely a fletion 
and an assumption. I believe that I ought to make a remark, perhaps 
in that connection, that the Commission were wholly misled by the 
cunning and want of veracity of this man Shidy. 

Q. Did you ever state to Shidy in what way you would like to have 
certifications made "? — A. I have no recollection of having done any- 
thing of the kind. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Did you do it ? — A. I did not do it. I will say further that this 
whole question of intimidation or fear of the postmaster by the clerks 
in the post-office will not bear scrutiny. I never dreamed of discharg- 
ing Dr. Shidy until shortly after the Commission were up there, and 
his discharge had no connection with his testimony, but it was caused 
by another matter. 

Q. Did Shidy ever say to you why he violated the civil-service law 1 — 
A. iSTever. The rules make it the duty of the board of examiners to re- 
port to the Commission every month. The rules further make it the 
duty of the secretary of the board to report dates of certifications every 
month, as I understand it. I had no idea that he undertook to cover 
the consequences of his laziness and indolence and dilatory habits by 
making dates really not the true dates on the book. 

Q. Did he ever at any time indicate to you before this examination 
that he expected to leave the office and secure a j)lace somewhere else ? — 
A. He often in a friendly way said to me that his relations with the 
Commission were such that he hoped to secure a better position at 
Washington in due time. I think that was the impression he gave me. 

Q. What time was this ? — A. I think he frequently spoke of his spe- 
cial relations with the Commission, and I am 'rather inclined to think 
that he thought he had been of special service to the Commission, and 
that he deserved from them moje consideration than he had received 
from that body, and that he was the special representative of the Com- 
mission in the Milwaukee office. He was inclined to indulge in dreams 
of that kind, and that he was a special favorite of the Department. He 
claimed to ine that one of the inducements for his retention would be, I 
do not know how true it was, that he had invented much of the ma- 
chinery of the Post-Office Department, and that he hoped to be rewarded 
for it. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 197 

, Q. Did be ever claim that be iuveuted tbe macbinery of tbe Civil 
Service Commission"^ — A. I tbink be regarded bimselfas a si)ecial rep- 
resentative of tbe great interest of tbe country in tbat particular. 

Q. Is tbere any trutb at all in any of tbe statements of Mr. Sbidy 
tbat you in any way assisted bim in tbe violation of tbe law, or making 
false certifications or stuffing tbe eligible list? — A. No, sir, tbere is no 
trutb in it tbat lever assisted bim in any way or any manner, or ad- 
vised or controlled bim. E will, in justice to bim, say tbat I do not 
tbink be intended to do anytbing wrong, all tbe way tbrougb. Tbat 
as an original proposition 1 tbink it was mere carelessness and blunders. 
He was a man wbo claimed to be in ill bealtb and very poor, and I at- 
tribute it to bis careless business methods. 

By tbe Chairman : 

Q. Did you ever appoint a man to office as a clerk before be bad passed 
a civil-service examination, in violation of law ? — A. Tbat was a point I 
was coming to. I never did sucb a tbing as tbat. Any sucb tbing as 
tbat could not bave been done witbout making trouble for myself and 
tbe entire office. I will state just bow tbose tbings occurred. Tbe 
Commission bas referred frequently to tbe record of certifications in its 
reports, and its blundering record makes all tbe trouble. 

I do not tbink it is a criminal record. I do not accuse Sbidy of crim- 
inality in tbat matter. Tbe cbarges are perfectly explained by tbe fact 
tbat tbe Commission did not make an investigation except by Sbidy. 

It was Sbidy's misrepresentation to cover bis own faults. He was 
intimidated by tbe Commission, and especially by Mr. Eoosevelt. Sbidy 
stated in tbe presence of witnesses tbat wben bis errors became known 
to tbe Commission, tbey would recommend bis removal at once. Sbidy 
said be was a poor man and could not afford it. Tbat is tbe explana- 
tion be made to me. 

Q. Mr. Sbidy testified bere, and I believe tbat was one of tbe cbarges 
brougbt against your office by tbe Commissioners, tbat you appointed a 
man to office, and tbat be served and drew a salary for some two or 
tbree weeks, and tbat after baving made tbe appointment in tbe legal 
way, you set it aside ? — A. I tbink you will find tbat I am quite rigbt 
about tbat. It was tbe case of Miss Wbitehead. 

Q. I do not recollect tbe case. I beard it stated. — A. I bave never 
seen tbe official testimony of Sbidy. I asked tbe Commission for it but 
never could get it. I bave only been able to guess for many montbs 
wbat tbat testimony was. Tbe Commission kept it from me and tbe 
testimony is still in tbeir possession. I understand tbe case referred 
to was the Wbitebead case, Miss Wbitebead, of tbe money-order de- 
partment. Miss Wbitebead was examined for a civil-service place. 
Sbe was appointed to a civil-service position at first, but under tbe 
rules and practice of tbe Dej)artment at tbat time, tbe post-office was 
permitted to give partial employment in tbe money-order service, and 
sbe baving passed a civil-service examination and standing very bigli 
was appointed as a stamper. Sbe entered upon ber duties and performed 
tbat work. Sbidy supposed, because tbe money-order clerks are not 
now performing tbe service, tbey were not tben allowed to do it. Tbe 
fact is tbey were allowed. 

Q, Wbat year was tbat *? 

Mr. LiND. It is August 1, 1885, tbat Miss Wbitebead was appointed. 

Q. At tbe time it was perfectly rigbt? — A. Yes; it was autborized 
by tbe Department. Sbidy did not know all my arrangements by any 
means. 



198 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION, 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. After you called for a name for the appointment of a clerk as 
stamper, did you know there was a vacancy in the stamper's division 
which you desired to fill? — A. At that time or subsequently ? 

Q. Subsequently 1 — A. Many times vacancies occur. 

Q. Do you remember calling for a name to fill one of those vacancies 
in the stampers' division? — A. I can remember calling for names, but 
I do not remember special cases. 

Q. Did you ever see that before [handing witness a paper] ? — A. I do 
not know. 

Q. Is that the slip that was reported to you to fill a vacancy in the 
stamper's division? — A. I can not tell. I think it was early in March, 
1886. 

Q. Do you remember whether you called for a report of three names 
to supply the vacancy that then existed in the stamj) department, and 
whether there was three names sent in as the law required or whether 
it contained only one ? — A. I think on one or two occasions 

Q. I am speaking of this case. — A. I can not speak definitely as to 
that case. I have no doubt the name was properly certified. 

Q. You are not clear as to the facts? — A. I think Dr. Shidy would 
be a proper witness in that case. 

Q. You do not recollect whether, when a vacancy occurred in March, 
1886, you requested names to be certified for the purpose of filling that 
vacancy? Do you know whether the certification contained only one 
name, and that was Miss Whitehead, or whether it contained three, as 
the law requires? — A. I can not say. I feel quite confident there were 
no remaining persons on the list of stampers, which was always short, 
and they probably certified to me only one name. 

Q. Are men as well as women employed in the stampers' division ? — 
A. Not women as a rule. This is the only case of a woman employed 
in the stampers' division. She was mainly in the money-order division. 

Q. Are not men usually employed in that capacity? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 'Were there not eligibles on the list at that time? — A. Yes, sir; 
matters of that kind were continually occurring, and I could not re- 
member particular cases. Dr. Shidy would be a good witness on that. 
There was no partiality. 

Q. Of course you are quite clear upon that point, and I simply want 
to know the facts. Have you any recollection of making any remon- 
strances ? 

AFTEKNOON SESSION. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE H. PAUL— Continued. 

The Ghairman. Mr. Hatton, wdl you proceed to ask the questions of 
this witness ? 

The Witness. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
would like to give a table I have here in place of the testimony which I 
gave this morning, this forenoon, as to the number of appointments. I 
read from my letter-book a record of the proportion of the appoint- 
ments, but the statement I have here covers the entire period and it is 
more intelligible by far, and I would like to submit it in place of that 
given this morning, inasmuch as there might be some interest in it. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 199 

. The Chaieman. I nnclerstancl that covers the entire period during 
which you filled the office of postmaster. 

A. Yes, sir ; entirely, and up to the time the Commission was at my 
office. 

The Ghateman. Suppose you give that, so the stenographer may 
take it down. 

The Witness. These are statistics of appointments and removals in 
the Milwaukee post-office from June 1, 1885, to July 15, 1889, complete. 
The number in classified service, June 1, 1885, since separated : resigned 
fourteen, removed five, died one, making twenty changes in the classi- 
fied service in the entire time of four years and a month and a half. 
Number in unclassified service, as I term it — those not required to pass 
the examination — June 1, 1885, since separated: resigned six, removed 
four, abolished one, making a total change of eleven. ISTumber in clas- 
sified service by my appointment, since separated: resigned eight, 
removed five, died one, making fourteen changes. Number in unclas- 
sified service, appointed by me, since separated: resigned eleven, 
removed one, died one, making thirteen. The total certification, 
including of course the dismissed since June 1, 1885, was one hun- 
dred and four, and of the total number holding places July 15 
was one hundred and forty-one. That does not include stamp agents 
and special delivery messengers, but it would come practically about as 
I stated this morning. That would make the total removals by me — it 
would make the total removals of all kinds fifteen. 

The Chairman. The total of number of removals during your entire 
service was fifteen ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That does not apply to the positions of clerks and letter-carriers ? — 
A. For all officials. 

Q. All persons ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Fifteen ? — A. Yes, sir ; in my four, years. 

Q. That includes the entire number of removals in four years'? — A. 
Four years, one month and a half, the entire number of removals. 

Q. How many resignations were there during that same time? — A. 
The resignations in the classified service are fourteen in that whole time. 
In the unclassified it is six. In the classified service of my appointment 
eight, and in the unclassified service of my appointment eleven ; that 
mskes the whole number. 

Mr. LiND. But that does not correspond with the number given in the 
first two years'^ — A. I do not know; that is correct, I know. 

The Chairman. Mr. Paul has a statement here, to which he is now 
referring, which gives the entire changes of the office for the whole 
term of his office, that is, up to the time he was examined. 

Mr. LiND. I know it, but it shows less than half the number he reports 
for the first two years. 

The Chairman. When we come to examine him maybe he will be 
called to account for it. Is there anything further you desire to add 
before you begin ? 

The Witness. No, sir. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Mr. Paul, you said this morning that you never had access to the 
records of the secretary of the board of examiners. — A. The question 
this morning was whether I had any access to the record of certifications, 
I think. 

Q. I understand you had not. — A. No, sir. 

Q. These certifications were made by Mr. Shidy, secretary of the 
board. — A. Yes, sir. 



200 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. In what way were these certifications madel Will you explain 
to the committee, if there is no objection on the part of the committee, 
what way these certifications were made by the secretary of the board 
of examiners'? — A. Well, sir, the way is the one prescribed by the rules 
of the Commission ; simply that the secretary shall submit the highest 
four names — it was four originally, but it is three now — to the apx)Oint- 
ment officer for selection. 

Q. Have you with you any certifications made by the secretary of the 
board of examiners? — A, Yes, sir 5 I have sami^les. 

Mr. Hatton. I would like to ask permission of the committee for Mr. 
Paul to submit these copies of certification papers made by the secretary 
of the board of examiners, and that they be left with the committee. 

The Chairman. There is no objection to that. 

The Witness. That is the ordinary style of a certification. 

Mr. LiND. This is blank ; there is nothing on this. 

Mr. BoATNEE. There is something on the other side. 

The Witness. There is a case of four certifications in the same 
manner. Sometimes they were made out in full form, but generally 
without any regular form for making these certifications. 

Q. Was there any regular form for making these certifications ? — A. 
There has been regular forms since provided more recently, but not 
originally. I would like to have the committee understand — — 

The Chairman. These are certification papers *? — A. Yes, sir. There 
are some which show the manner in which the work was done. 

Q. Who drew up these papers ? — A. The Secretary. 

Q. Mr. Shidy? — A. Yes, sir 5 they are in his handwriting. 

Q. Have you submitted the certification papers you desired to ? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Mr. BoATNER. Do you submit the samples of certification which you 
furnish as 

The Witness. I think they are good samples. I wish to explain to 
the committee further that Mr. Shidy, as I understand, in his testimony 
makes a sort of discrepancy in the certifications as to the date by assum- 
ing that the book of record of certifications, as we were in the habit of 
calling it, was the certification. Up to the time of the visit of Major 
Webster, I think Major Webster, at my office, Dr. Shidy regarded these 
papers as the proper certification to furnish me for any name and stand- 
iug and that it would have been no violation of rules ; he furnished me 
these papers as the certifications and I never understood until Major 
Webster came there that the book itself, the record of the certification, 
was intended to be the certification. I think I am right, Major Web- 
ster, in that. But in order to prove further that this is Mr. Shidy's con- 
struction of the rule, both to the Commission and me, as to what con- 
stituted a certification, I have here his letter dated Septeuiber 1, 1886, 
addressed to me as postmaster, in which he si^ecifically declares — 

I have the honor to certify the following names as being those of the four having 
the highest standing on the list of eligibles for appoiutrueut as stamper. 

and then ensues the names. This fixes the fact of that construction. 

Mr. LiND. Is that intended to be put in evidence? — A. Yes, sirj if 
you will allow it ; I have no objection. 

The Chairman. There is no objection. 

The Witness. Under his instruction, having served from the organiza- 
tion of the Commission on the board of examiners, of course I assumed 
that that was the intended certification, but under the instruction of 
Major Webster subsequently, in 1888, Dr. Shidy changed his view and 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 201 

practice and after that date the book itself was submitted as the certi 
f],cation. I do not know to this day where the rules for certificatious 
require the submission of the book to the postmaster as the original 
and primary certification ; it may be in the book or in the instructions 
to the board of examiners. The instructions to the board of examiners, 
I will explain further, were never submitted to me as a rule by the sec- 
retary of that board. I was not supposed to be interested in the duties 
of the board of examiners. It was a fact understood by everybody 
that I had nothing to do with its duties in any manner. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. During the first year of your service as postmaster did you ever 
receive a notice from the Commission here or through its officer, the 
secretary of the local examining board, that you were violating the law 
in any way in the removals and appointments f — A. No, sir. The first 
intimation, the first criticisms, perhaps, unless something merely tech- 
nical and informal, that I ever received from any board or any author- 
ity during my entire term was after the visit of the Commission itself 
in 1889. 

Q., After the visit of Mr. Eoosevelt and Mr. Thompson? — A. Yes, 
sir ; at the time Mr. Eoosevelt and Mr. Thompson and Mr. Lyman were 
present. After they left 

Q. Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster did not notify you ? — A. Mr. Doyle 
and Mr. Vv'ebster were in my office in September, 1888, and I did not 
understand this from them or infer from anything that occurred that 
any question had arisen as to the postmaster's duties. I supposed the 
investigation or examination related almost strictly- or entirely to the 
manner in which the records had been kept and how the duties of the 
examining board had been performed. There were some minor matters 
to which i^erhaps Major Webster called my attention, but I have no 
recollection of what I regarded as any serious criticism upon the of- 
fice. I wish to state to the coinmittee further that the duties of the 
postmaster of an office under civil-service law are very simple and very 
limited. The duties include simply, on the presentation of the certi- 
fication to the ijostmaster, the selection of one of the men certified for the 
position, and reiDort the appointment to the examining board, so that 
it may make wp its record. I think this is about all any i30stmaster 
under the civil service laws is required to do. That is the end of the 
matter practically, at least, and I have always so regarded it, and 1 fol- 
lowed implicitly the rules in that respect. 

Q. Did Mr. Doyle and Mr. Webster, when they were there, before 
leaving tell you the nature of the investigation they had made? — 
A. The nature 1 

Q. Tes, sir. — A. Only by leaving me to infer from interrogatories 
relating very largely to the duties of the examining board. 

Q. Did they tell you that the testimony taken in that examination 
implicated you in any way? — A. I did not so understand it in any way. 
I never heard from it again, and I did not understand that I was im- 
plicated in any manner. I stated there perhaps, under those circum- 
stances, to Major Webster that which I would not have stated under the 
present circumstances. I was rather disposed to apologize and explain 
for Mr. Shidy. I did not think he had been anything more than techni- 
cally guilty. I did not know, and when cases were presented to me for 
explanation relating to his duties I gave the best explanation I could 
under the circumstances, from my little knowledge of his affairs, and 



202 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

in that way I possibly gave quite a little testimony. I did not suppose 
it affected my duties in any serious way. 

Q. Do you know whether there was a report made of the testimony 
taken by Messrs. Doyle and Webster ? — A. The report "I 

Q. Yes, sir ; by the Commission.— A. No, sir ; I never knew there 
was any report ; to the President, do you mean 1 

Q. Yes. — A. I understand there was no report of the Commission at 
the time, but from what source T can not now remember. I since under- 
stood directly by information, if proper to state the fact, from Mr. Edgar- 
ton to this effect, that the report was examined, and its consideration 
indefinitely postponed at that time. 

Mr. LiND. Examined by whom ? — A. By the Commission. I think 
the Commission was not then full ; that is my impression. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. Did he make a statement of that kind in writing to you 1 — A. I 
think he has ; yes, sir. 

Q. Have you a copy of this letter ? — A. I have not that letter with 
me by a mere accident ; I intended to have brought it. 

Q. Did the Postmaster-General ever notify you a report had been 
made which implicated you in any violation of the civil-service law in 
any way *? — A. No, sir. The Postmaster-General — no, sir ; but 1 had 
words of commendation from the Post-Ofiice Department about that 
time. 

Q. At the time the three commissioners were there in 1889 they did 
not notify you in regard to the object of their visit, you stated this morn- 
ing. Did you know at that time whom they examined? — A. Yes, sir; 
I knew it ; it was commonly reported that they examined Mr. Shidy, as 
I understand it. 

Q. Did you understand they examined anybody else ? — A. No, sir. 
Mr. Fahsei, who is a member of the board, I remember distinctly I re- 
quested to remain in that office until the Commission might want him, 
and Mr. Fahsei informed me the next morning that he remained until 
aboiit dark, after a hard day's work, and then he went to his supper. 

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Fahsei was notified by the Commission 
to give any testimony at all? — A. No, sir; he was not ; I think not. 
He was in the office the next da3\ 

Q. Do you know whether Mr, Johnson was notified to give any tes- 
timony? A. Only from information from Mr. Johnson to the effect 
that he was asked one or two questions and that the answers he gave 
in the case were from information he derived from Shidy and not from 
any other source ; that he gave the answers, not thinking it was an in- 
vestigation, merely assuming or believing it to be a fact when he gave 
those replies. That is what Mr. Johnson afterwards told me soon after 
the Commission left. 

Q. What was the first intimation you had that the investigation had 
taken place, official information? — A. That the investigation was tak- 
ing place? 

Q. Had taken place?— A. It was through the Associated Press, when 
the report was made to the country by which I was censured and con- 
demned for everything but political errors and mistakes, and crime; 
that is, for general violation of law without any specification. That re- 
port was sent broadcast through this country and was the first intima- 
tion I ever had and the first criticism I ever had in any formal manner 
from that office. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 203 

Q, Did you ever make an effort to secure from the Commission the 
tesilmony upon which you had been convicted ? — A. Yes, sir; I wrote a 
formal letter requesting a copy of any testimony which affected my 
official duties, and I never received that testimony to this day ; to this 
day I am ignorant of the testimony except from inference. 

Q. Did you ever receive any reply at all to your letter making an ap- 
plication for this testimony 1 — A. I can not tell, but my impression is I 
received a brief lormal acknowledgment. That is my impression; I 
can not state positively ; no other reply. 

Q. You had a conversation w^ith Mr. Roosevelt the morning after 
Shidy gave his testimony ? 

The Witness. The morning after ? 

Q. Yes, 

The Witness. I can not say ; it would be after che testimony. I had 
a conversation on the morning after he came into the office ; a short one ; 
a very brief one. 

Q. Can you give the nature of that conversation 1 — A. I presume you 
refer to the question with regard to the expiration of my term ? 

Q. Yes. — A. That was the evening before. It occurred on the even- 
ing before. 

Q. The Commissioners testify you stated to the Commission you had 
already tendered your resignation. — A. When the Commission first 
came into the office — Mr. Yau Schaick is here and he can confirm what 
I say as to the facts — I said to the Commission that I was tired of office 
and had other duties inconsistent with my remaining there; that I 
had been there over four years and that I had requested the Eepre- 
sentative of the district to get his man as soon as possible. That is the 
substance of my information as near as I can repeat it; and that I re- 
garded my term of office as about up, having served more than four 
years, and having requested Mr. Yan Schaick to select his man and place 
him in my place, as I wished to be relieved. I did not say, as the Corn- 
mission seem to have apprehended — there is certainly very great room 
for misapprehension under such circumstances — I did not say my last 
commission had expired. 

Mr. BoATNER. You considered the election had something to do with 
your term, didn't you ? 

Mr. Paul. No, sir ; not much, because there was no intention of re- 
moving me at all at that time by any representatives of the administra- 
tion there that I ever heard of at all. It was my voluntary resignation 
at that time, and then, when the Commission commenced its charges, 
the Eepresentative from that district refused to forward my resignation 
at all until that matter was cleared up. 

Mr. Hatton. Who was the Representative at that time 1 — A. Rep- 
resentative Van Schaick, and he himself applied to the Department for 
a re-investigation of the facts with many others, which was never had. 
The Commission published its first report through the Associated Press, 
and I presume sent it to the President also, and very soon made a very 
lengthy supplementary report, as it was called. The first report did 
not recommend my removal at all on the ground that there was no 
evidence that I had made any political appointments or removals sub- 
stantially. Then I replied to that by interviews through tlie local news- 
papers. The Commission then made a supplementary report and gave 
as a reason for so doing, and recommended my removal in the supple- 
mentary report, that I had falsified facts as to the expiration of my 
commission as postmaster, which was probably a misapprehension on 



204 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

the part of the Commissioners. I am very willing to concede the Com- 
missioners misapprehended my statement. 

Q. In the second report did they assign as one of the reasons why 
they recommended your removal the part you had taken with Shidy in 
making these false certifications ? — A. Well, they gave the whole — em- 
bodied about the whole of Shidy's testimony. 

Q. The report will show the fact itself? — A, Assuredly. 

Q. After you first heard of the report of the Commission, based on 
their interview, that of Messrs. Thompson, Lyman and Eoosevelt, did 
you have a conversation with Shidy ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hatton. Is there any objection on tbe part of the committee to 
his giving the nature of the conversation ? 

Mr. LiND. Not at all ; that is proper. 

A. Mr. Shidy came into my office, I think, voluntarily, and I asked 
Shidy what he had been saying to my discredit to the Commissioners ; 
that I inferred from what had occurred that lie had been testifying to 
very extraordinary facts, or facts that were not facts. He immediately 
commenced to apologize and to explain to me how very sorry he was 
that he could not have seen me before he gave his testimony and had 
it arranged in some way, I do not know how. He said that he had been 
caught in a corner by the Commissioners without any method of escape. 
He said that if the facts had to come out as I understood them, the 
Commission would undoubtedly have recommended his removal from 
office, etc. He talked in that strain and expressed very great regret 
that the matter had occurred. I asked Shidy why he could not be more 
honest and brave under those circumstances, and I thought it would be 
much better for him in every way, and he seemed to be very much ex- 
cited at the suggestion. He stood up in the middle of the floor imme- 
diately and addressed me in his peculiar and emphatic manner. "Why," 
he says, "Mr. Paul, you can be brave, you have resources; you are a 
healthy, strong man, and I am a poor, sick man here, dependent upon 
my salary for a living, in j)overty," and he says, " I can not be brave ; 
you have no right to ask me to be brave under these circumstances." 
That is the sum and substance of his speech to me, and almost the ex- 
l^ress words as near as I can recollect them. 

A day or two after, as this comes in connection, I then informed him 
distinctly that I should not remove him for any testimony he had given 
to the Commission, that it was his right to give that testimony, and 
that in doing so he was not undei my jurisdiction but under that of the 
Commission, that I did not intend to remove him for it or censure him 
in any way, but I should leave that question entirely for the Commis- 
sion to judge. But I think it was on. the ensuing day, it was on Satur- 
day morning, I took uj) a German paper, one of the leading newspapers 
of Milwaukee with a very large circulation — the Herold — and I saw 
there a statement of Shidy. A great deal of contempt had been ex- 
pressed for him editorially by that paper on the ground he was a Ger- 
man originally but he ignored the Germans i^ractically. I think there 
was quite a bitter feeling in regard to Shidy's German nationality, but 
Shidy made a statement in that paper, a very extraordinary one, many 
insinuations in it and many untruths in it. I held a special conversa- 
tion with Mr. Shidy about that article. I have a copy of the article here 
which can be submitted to the committee if they would like to see it. 
It is an open letter. He called it an open letter. Shidy confessed to 
me that he had done me an injustice in that letter. It is not only false, 
but very disrespectful. I told him I did not see how it would be con- 
sistent for us to continue our official relations in that office, ^that I 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 205 

tbought it would make a laughiug-stock of me with the public to attempt 
to do so, aud I suggested to him the propriety of correcting it as to those 
things where he thought he had done me an injustice, Shidy proposed 
to do so, and also proposed of his own accord to recall that letter from 
two or more English j)apers where he had taken it. He said he wrote 
it under a state of excitement and said more than he ought to have 
said. I think he undertook to withdraw the letter. I have the im- 
pression very strongly now that one paper — the Evening Wisconsin — at 
least one of them refused to publish such a scandalous statement. One 
paper did publish it and it had considerable circulation, whereupon I — 
this is the letter, if any one wishes to see it, published with illustrations. 

By Mr. Boatnee, : 

Q. It that Shidy's letter ? — A. That is the letter Shidy wrote for the 
press. 

Q. You say it is illustrated with wood cuts ? — A. Yes sir, it is inter- 
spersed with wood cuts. 

Mr. Stone. Do you wish to put that letter in? — A. I have no objec- 
tion if the committee think it is proper. 

I then wrote to Shidy a formal letter dismissing him, in which I gave 
him distinct reasons. I have a copy of his letter here, and I have the 
letter-press copy here somewhere of the letter to Shidy in return. I did 
not consider it consistent with my own self-respect and the dignity of 
the office after the publication of that letter to retain him. Erom the 
statements in that letter I might call attention to the fact in regard to 
my having violated the law in the appointment of Mr. Trumpff, who was 
paying teller in the money-order office to a civil-service position with- 
out certification, which he charges in the letter. Mr. Trumpff makes 
affidavit (I have the affidavit) that he never was appointed to any civil 
service position at all ; that he never was. He was appointed and ac- 
cepted the position which Mr. Shidy misaj^prehended and understood to 
be a civil service position— supposed it was a civil-service position at 
the time [reading], " Milwaukee, June 30" — this was nine days after 
the Commission was there and I think very nearly a week after the 
publication of the report. 

The letter to Shidy was as follows : 

Milwaukee, Wis., June 30, 1889. 

Dear Sir : Some of the newspapera of this city contain a letter from you, in which 
you impugn my integrity in the administration of the civil-service law. You have 
kindly conceded to me that this letter does me injustice in many particulars, aud 
that you regret its publication; but, though aiibrded a generous opportunity to tell 
the public what you have told me in explanation of this letter, you have omitted to 
do so, and leave me to endure the consequences of your injustice or repel them as I 
can. As I have already said to you, the continuance of our official relations under 
these circumstances is impossible, and you will accordingly consider those relations 
discontinued from this date. 
Truly, 

Geo. H. Paul, P. M. 

H. Shidy, Esq., 

Suverintendent Begistry Division. 

That had not the slightest or remotest connection with the testimony 
at all, and I did not intend it should. Mr. Chairman, while on the sub- 
ject of certifications I might as well, having the document here in my 
hand — Imightas well presentto thecommitteethepublicationby Shidy of 
the entire list of eligibles. It has been stated, I think, that when I was 
asked if I had ever seen the list of eligibles I smiled. I certainly did 
smile, for there is the whole list, after the examination, published by 
Shidy in the Milwaukee Sentinel, I think, or in one newspaper, directly 
ill the order of their standing, and I did see it. Here it is if any one 



206 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

wishes it ; it is a clear, palpable violation of law, of wliicli I knew noth- 
ing until I saw it in the press. I do not think he intended anything 
wrong about it. but I think it was simply a part of his slovenly manner 
of doing all business. 
The list was as follows : 

Clerks.— Art^nv S. Howard, Albert L. Triimpff, Frederick J. Weber, Eicliard J. 
Hickey, Howard S. Hills, EichardL. Harney, Frank Stockliausen, John J. McGucken, 
Frank Pepkorn, George J. Holt, Miss Alice McGuigan. 

Junior messengers.— Charles F. Hurley, Wm. Gillis, Patrick McCormack, Joliu W. 
O'Brien, Joseph Holland, Thos. J*. O'Neill, 

Carriers.— Evan H. Jones, F. J. Meckelburg, Wm. M. Eeilly, F. K. Knebel, Edward 
A. Dittmar, Peter S. Juneau, James P. Mellon, John H. Eyan, Joseph Klein, E. E. 
Schoenleber, J. E. Nnzem, J. H. Williams, S. T. Tabert, Joseph H. O'Malley, 13. W. 
Lloyd, E. H. Joers, W. Leihammer, Wm. H, Linke, F. C. Ghent, George W. Lindorf, 
G. S. Joyce, C. F. Stray. 

Mr. Hatton. You stated this morning in a conversation that Shidy 
had said something about being transferred to a position in Washing- 
ton. Was that conversation before the Commission went to Milwau- 
kee. — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiND. Had not the witness better fix the date of that publication? 
That may be material. 

The Witness. I think the date is on the paper. 

Mr, LiND. ]f not it will be well to have it. 

The Witness. (Examining paper.) Ko, it is not here. I think it was 
in the original paper ; this has been cut out. But that does not affect 
the fact. 

Mr. LiND. But if you could give us the date it would be an aid to the 
committee, perhaps, in considering your testimony. 

The Witness. 1 can not give the precise date of that. 

Mr. Stone. Can you give it in reference to the visit of any of this 
Commission 1 — A. Yes, sir ; it was before any certifications were made 
or anything of the kind. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Before the certifications were made to you ?— A. Before any certi- 
fications were made from that list. 

Q. And your information regarding the eligibles was obtained from 
newspapers ? — A. Well, sir, I aid not ask for any information ; I sim- 
ply was amused at the very lax hianner in which he performed his duty 
in the case, and I cut it out of the paper and pasted it away. I never 
used it for information. 

Q. What I wanted to get at was whether this publication antedated 
the visit of the Civil Service Commission at Milwaukee? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Boatner. How much *? — A, I referred to it in my talk to the 
Commission. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Had you any other reason for removing Mr. Shidy other than the 
fact that he had been disrespectful to you as his superior oificer ? — A. 
No, sir. I should not have removed him because of his giving testi- 
mony to the Commission at all. I did not intend it, and he had no 
apprehensions on that point. He never had apprehensions of removal 
by me or any penalty because of his course in the ofiQce. 

"Q. At the time you wrote this letter dismissing him, did you know 
then the nature of his testimony, whether it implicated you ? — A. 
Know of its character *? 

Q. Yes. — A. Yes, sir; 1 knew of its general character, and I took 
this view of it : That Shidy in that respect was acting entirely out- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 207 

side of his postal duties, as an officer of the post-office, entirely; that 
he was acting as agent of the Commission, and I had no control over 
him, and I could not punish him properly. I think I so stated that 
whatever he said or did, it was not my province to punish the act 
myself, because he obeyed the Commission, to whom he was subject. 
That was my view of the case then. I know others take a different 
view, but the view that I took of it was that as a subordinate officer of 
the Commision I thought his conduct was subject to their supervision 
properly. Of course it was very unpleasant, the whole matter. 

Q. I asked you, but I did not get your answer, when your conversa- 
tion with Mr. Shidy occurred in regard to his coming to Washington, 
had the Commission visited Milwaukee or afterwards? — A. I did not 
intend to speak of a definite conversation, but he frequently expressed 
a desire or expectation that ultimately he would be transferred to Wash- 
ington, That seemed to be his pet ambition. I wish to say further, 
perhaps without interfering with your matter, in way of explanation of 
Shidy's frequent statement that I had examined and controlled the rec- 
ords, I have never denied that occasionally I have seen the record — not 
the list, but the record of eligibles after an examination — when placed 
before me by Shidy. I never saw that register of eligibles, as it is 
properly called, except when he brought it to me directly or by his au- 
thority. I never made any use of it. I never expected or wished to 
see it in any manner whatever 5 but Shidy was running around the office 
with that book under his arm very frequently, and when making the 
certifications there he was likely to come to my table, so that I can 
say that I have seen it; but that I have seen it for any improper pur- 
pose, or that I myself used it or obtained it during his absence, I wish to 
say that anything of the kind I utterly deny. I have a letter-press 
copy of an affidavit of one who kept charge of this register, confirming 
my statement, and also of another, being the only two to whom the 
register was accessible save Shidy. Shidy kept the register in the safe 
where these other parties were, his associates in the office, and I could 
not have gone to that register without their knowledge and consent, 
and they are ready to come before this committee and testify that I 
never saw the register in Shidy's absence, for no one else could have 
given it to me except Shidy or one of these two clerks. . 

Q. Was there no excuse given you by Sbidy about the publication of 
this assault upon you personally"? — A. Publication of what? 

Q. Of that article in that paper. — A. Well, I do not know, except 
that he said he was excited and inspired to do it, as it was likely to in- 
jure him if he did not comply with what he seemed to think was the 
compulsion of the Commission. In fact, while he was telling the Com- 
mission that he was under my duress he was telling me that he was 
under their duress in the matter. My theory is that the real reason 
was, that is, the real object in the matter was, a very natural one for a 
man in his class. I think, in the first place, he was very anxious to 
conceal the fact as to his own actions, and, as I told him, I did not think 
those facts implied any actual guilt, any actual intention to violate the 
law, but simply a laxity and want of order and a want of sense of pro- 
priety in the matter. That is about the view I took of it. I think he 
would have done almost anything rather than confess the real facts in 
the case, that is, in regard to his carelessness and the looseness of his 
methods of business. I always felt a sympathy for him and a disposi- 
tion to aid him as much as 1 could ; but still he says he was coerced by 
me there through the entire term of four or five years. The universal 
public understanding in the office and outside the office was that no 



208 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

man would be removed from that office who performed his duties prop- 
erly, and he understood it more particularly thau any other person, for 
he exhibited more interest in the result. Not only that, but Shidy's 
young son was on the eligible list and came up on certification, and I 
offered to make that selection of his son. I think he declined in due 
form, because he could get a better place. 1 was very anxious, as far 
as I could lawfully, to assist him. He never had any reason to com- 
X)lain. He can not bring a single person — I challenge him — who served 
in that ofi&ce, or who is in that post-office now under my successor, or 
my successor himself, or my predecessor — not one — to corroborate any 
portion of the testimony reflecting upon my official integrity, not one. 
Of course it is a question as to veracity between Shidy and myself. 

Q. Did you ever hear at any time that the Commission or any mem- 
ber of the Commission had brought pressure to bear on the Postmaster- 
General and the President to compel your resignation? 

Mr. LiND. Well, that would be mere hearsay. I do not think that is 
proper. 

Mr. Hatton. All right. 

The CHAiTiMAN. What'is the question ? 

Mr. BoATNER. Have you any knowledge of that fact ? 

The Witness. No, sir. 

Mr. Hatton. The question was, had the Commission or any member 
of the Commission ever caused or brought pressure to bear on the Post- 
master-General and President to compel your resignation ?— A. No, 
sir. My resignation had been continually before the Department^ ever 
since my reply to the Commission, to the President. I have intima- 
tion of the fact that pretty strong influences were brought to bear upon 
the President. 

Q. You do not know that of your own knowledge? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Mr. Paul, in Mr. Eoosevelt's testimony he said you made a state- 
ment and denied it and then denied your denial. Have you any idea 
what he meant in regard to that? — A. 1 might say to him that I did 
not hold a report nearly a year, and then divide it and make two re- 
ports ; certainly. I have no knowledge of having denied anything I 
have said. The committee, of course, will understand and the Com- 
mission would naturally understand that the details of an office like 
mine are very multitudinous ; that in referring to individual questions 
in detail it is very difficult for any person to remember the precise facts 
bearing upon the case, and it is a very possible fact that I may at times 
have given one explanation of a state of facts when upon reflection I 
could give a fuller explanation. I was taken by surprise, and did not 
understand this was a formal investigation when the Commission came 
to my office. There was no stenographic reporter. 

By Mr. Boatner : 
Q. Excuse me for interrupting you right there, but did you under- 
stand when these officers were out there, that they were investigating 
you, or that they were investigating the local board of civil-service 
examiners ? — A. 1 had not the slightest idea that that Commission 
Avere investigating me, I did not know anything of the investigation 
and I do not know now. As I said, the duties of a postmaster are 
exceedingly simple. The Commission came to my office late in the after- 
noon, about 3 o'clock. They came into the office and I presume I had 
been in town an hour, and Commissioner Thompson — 1 had been out 
the night before to some public duties at Madison, and on reaching 
my office very sooii lifter, the Commission came into the office, and I 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 209 

explaiuetl to tliein I was very miicli exhausted physically, and if an 
examination was to be had and testimony taken, that I was in a very 
l^oor condition to give it; but they did ask a number of questions, and 
I think we occupied about an hour or so about that matter, or per- 
haps three-quarters of an hour or more and 1 then asked to be excused. 
I answered almost at random, not supposing it was a particular exami- 
nation, because there was no stenographer present at all. I answered 
off-hand, and the next morning they were there a few minutes longer, 
but a few minutes ; I think they were in the office the entire time about 
three hours in the examination of myself and Shidy and in other busi- 
ness they had with the records. I think it would not exceed three hours 
the entire time for an examination covering details of appointments 
and changes of more than four years. I think to call that an examina- 
tion — I never regarded it as such. 

Q. During that examination of yourself, did they ask you whether 
you violated the civil-service law ? — A. I do not remember any such 
question as that and nothing to intimate that I had violated it. 

Q. Did they ask whether you assisted Shidy in making false certifi- 
cations 1 — A. They asked me about Shidy 's aifairs, as I regarded it, 
about Shidy's method of doing business, and it was all about Shidy, 
etc., wholly, I think, wholly. Commissioner Thompson very kindly 
said to Mr. Eoosevelt, " What has the postmaster to do with all these 
matters you are questioning him about *? He says it does not come 
within the province of the postmaster." That was the extent of his 
remarks, as I so recollect. 

Q. I have but three other questions to ask you. During your four 
years' term as postmaster did you ever intimate in any manner what- 
ever to the secretary of the local examining board that you would like 
him to make false certificates ? — A. 'No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever say to him that you would like to have him pad 
the eligible list? — A. No, sir; I never knew that he did. I think the 
records of certification was produced during this visit of the Commis- 
sion, and I examined it for the first time subsequently. I have no recol- 
lection of ever knowing anything of the kind before. I never examined 
that book before. The Commission is under misapprehension. The 
Commission stated the book was always brought to me for my signa- 
ture. That is practically true, that when an appointment had been 
made 

Mr. Hatton. I do not care about your explaining anything more 
about the appointments. Did you ever intimate to the secretary of the 
local board that he could oblige you by marking up or marking down 
examination papers ? — A. Ko, sir ; never. I would have resigned my 
olfice first. 

Q. Did you ever assist in any of these offenses of which Shidy has 
charged you 1 — A. No, sir. 

Q. In charging you with these oifeuses, this making of false certifica- 
tion, the stuffing of the eligible list, and by marking the ineligible up 
to the eligible list, and by marking eligibles down to the ineligible list,' 
did Mr. Shidy tell the truth or did he tell a falsehood ?— A. He told a 
falsehood if he stated anything about the list in any manner implicating 
me as to any wrong in any certification. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Hatton. I have nothing further. I would like the Commissioners 
to ask some questions. 

3ni 14 



210 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION, 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. I would like to ask the witness a few questions. Mr. Paul, for 
the purpose of bringing the matter in proper shape before you, I will 
state Mr. Shidy's testimony. Mr. Shidy has stated that you required 
him, contrary to the provisions of law, to allow you access to the eligi- 
ble list; is that true 1 — A. No, sir; that is not true. 

Q. He has stated that you required him, contrary to the provisions 
of law, to furnish you with the certifications of men who had already 
been appointed to office, who were already filling their positions ; is that 
true? — A. No, sir. 

Q. He has stated that you required him to furnish you with certifica- 
tions containing names of men you wanted and that other names which 
were merely dummies were put there in accordance with law, when in 
truth and fact the man you wanted had been previously selected and 
appointed upon certification by your direction; is that true"?— A. No, 
sir ; he never had any direction from me on that subject at all, of any 
kind. 

Q. He has stated that, under your direction and duress, the names of 
eligibles who stood high, whom you did not intend to appoint, were 
marked down so that others you did want to appoint could be furnished 
you on the list of eligibles ; is that true *? — A. No, sir; I never did any- 
thing of the kind. 

Q. Now, when the Commission came out to Milwaukee for the purpose 
of looking into this matter, did they inform you charges had been 
made or information had been given by Mr. Shidy with regard to these 
derelictions of the civil-service examination board? — A. When they 
were in Milwaukee I 

Q. Yes, sir. — A. No, sir, not by direct information. Before the close 
of the day I discovered that Mr. Eoosevelt held in his hand the testi- 
mony which had been taken the year previous by Major Webster. That 
is the first time I knew that testimonj^ was in any manner in investiga- 
tion, and I learned that — 1 felt positive by mere inference from remarks 
made by the Commissioners between themselves. I never was formally 
informed that this question pertained to that testimony of the preced- 
ing year, which I supposed was dead and buried. I did not suppose 
it related to me in any way, but a remark was made, I think, by Mr. 
Eoosevelt towards the close of the matter, when he held in his hand 
some papers which undoubtedly was that testimony. I was not in- 
formed in advance of my answers that that investigation was directed 
to me. That is about the whole of it. I think the Commission will 
confirm it. 

Q. Please state whether or not the Commission informed you at that 
time or at any time before they made their report that Mr. Shidy's con- 
fession or statement of his own derelictions of duty involved you and 
that made you a partieeps criminis in those derelictions 1 — A. I never 
understood that at all ; there was, however, in the conversation between 
the Commissioners and myself reference to some technical, what you 
might call technical, violations of law, in the later conversation, that 
might possibly involve me without explanation. I forget now what 
they were. The main thing relating to me was the question asked with 
regard to whether I dictated the remarking of the papers of one man 
on one occasion. I think that is all I considered involving me properly. 
I thought the Commission were rather overreaching the mark x)erhaps 
in endeavoring to involve me on the basis of the facts relating to the 
secretary. The construction which I 

Q. What I wanted to get at is this^ the general tone of your testi- 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 211 

moiiy here would indicate that you were not aware that the Commission 
were investigating you but that they were rather investigating the ex- 
amining board there? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that you endeavored to explain some technical violations 
of law made by the board '? — A. Yes, sir ; the circumstances under 
which 

Q. And did not understand that they were investigating you. Now, 
I want to know if that is the impression you wanted to create on the 
committee that you did not know that they were investigating your of- 
ficial conduct and therefore you had no opportunity to defend your- 
self? — A. I mean to say that I did not realize 

Q. You did not realize that they were investigating you 1 — A. No, 
sir ; not in any way. 

Q. When did you realize or ascertain the fact that they were investi- 
gating you as well as the examining board 1 — A. In the Associated 
Press, the report containing the expressions of the Commission. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. I want to ask you one or two questions. As a matter of fact you 
had access — that is, access in the sense that you knew what the names 
were on the eligible list right along — that is, from newspaper information, 
and from the fact that Shidy came around with the book and showed it 
to you ? — A. No, sir; I never had knowledge of the list at all, not even 
from the newspaper list. I voluntarily put that away in my scrap-book 
there, or some clerk did it, and I never referred to it again and I never 
saw it from that day to this until I hunted it up. 

Q. Do you remember how many changes, the figures differ — do you 
remember how many changes were made in the office in the aggre- 
gate during your term ? — A. It is all in this list, the tabulated state- 
ment I gave. 

The Chairman. He has already stated that. 

Mr. LiND. The figures he gives for the first two years exceeds the 
aggregate of the entire term and there is a discrepancy somewhere. 

The Witness. No, sir; I think there is a misapprehension there. 

Mr. LiND. Well, we will waive that testimony. To your knowledge, 
was any Eepublican appointed during your incumbency 1 — A. Yes, sir; 
very many. 

Q. How many '? — A. Well, sir, I can only say this, that the office was 
estimated at the time I retired ; that the majority of the whole number 
of employes of each department were Republicans or so classed. 

The Chairman. When you went out of office ? — A. Yes, I never in- 
quired the politics of any man. 

Mr. Lind. I do not suppose you did. — A. They were so classed and 
appointed in the office according to the best estimate. Mr. Shidy was 
one who hung very high on the fence. I think he told that he was di- 
rectly related to Mr. Cleveland, he is certainly a very rampant advocate 
of free-trade. 

Some one. Well, that is a good sign. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. Now, did you have any private memoranda of names that you de- 
sired to appoint ? — A, Never any private memorandum, sir. 

Q. Well, did you have any public memorandum? — A. I never had 
any public memorandum of the eligible list. 

Q. That is not what I asked for. I asked whether you had any 
memoranda of names that you desired to be appointed in the service 1 — 
A. No other way than this. I. do not think I ever had any memoran 



212 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

dum except in my brain, at all. I Iiave no recollection of it. It is 
not possible — if tbe list was certified to me it was necessary for me to 
make some investigation as to tbe cbaracter of tbe man certified. 

Mr. LiND. Yes. — A. And I sometimes inquired of proper men, botb 
Democrats and Republicans, wbo knew tbe bistory of tbe men as to 
tbeir qualifications, tbeir relative qualifications. I considered tbat my 
duty and rigbt, 

Q. Certainly, I did not criticise tbat.— A. But beyond tbat I never 
kept any formal memoranda in any way. I may sometimes bave made 
tbese memoranda on paper ; I naturally would do tbat. 

Q. But wbat I bad reference to — I did not criticise any action of tbat 
kind as improper, I tbink a man sbould exercise bis judgment in re- 
gard to appointments. I simply want to ascertain tbe facts. Now, 
did you not bave any memoranda of persons wbo desired and wbo 
would be proper to appoint tbat you were familiar witb before tbe va- 
cancies occurred? — A. No, sir; I bad only tbis. I bad in my office a 
file of petitions and recommendations as bigb as my bat, unquestionably, 
but otberwise I bad no memoranda, I bad no cboice. 

Q. Well, tbat answers my question completely. You bad petitions 
and recommendations on file. — A. Yes, sir; every appointing officer bas 
tbem, but I ignored tbem all, as a rule, exceiit wben a man wbo was 
sometimes certified as standing bigb, and nearly all were strangers to 
me, watside of my associates, nearly all tbe appointees in tbe classified 
service ; sometimes I would go back and see wbat was said about tbem, 
as any business man would, but no furtber tban tbat. If your question 
is intended to ask tbis, if ever I went to tbat eligible list 

Q. No ; I do not care about tbe eligible names. Tbe committee under- 
stand by tbis time tbat you bad public access to tbe eligible list at any 
time you bad tbe curiosity to see it; in fact, you bad one of tbem. I 
mean, as a matter of fact, you could ascertain wbo was on tbe eligible 
list at any time? — A. No, sir; I could not, and tbat is a mistake to say 
I could. Tbat eligible list, or register of eligibles we preferred to call 
it, was kept locked in a safe in tbe registry department, and I do not 
know bow I could ev^er know anytbing of it witbout consent of parties 
in cbarge of it. 

Q. Did not you state awbile ago tbat Mr. Sbidy would time and again 
sbove it under your nose, bring it to your table, and sbow it to you*? — 
A. Yes, sir ; be would bring it in tbe office, it is true, but not at any 
time. Tbat question imi3lies tbat I could take tbat list and examine it 
at my pleasure. 

Q. Wbat I asked, wbat I say is, tbat for practical purposes, if you 
wanted to be familiar witb it you bad an opportunity to do so ? — A. I 
do not see bow I could get it except tbrougb Sbidy. 

Q. Well, tbat is wbat I meant. You had every opportunity if you 
wanted it to get it tbrougb Sbidy ? — A. I tbink if I bad asked Sbidy 
to examine and look at tbe list tbat be would, probably, judging from 
bis usual actions and conduct, bave brougbt it all to me, but I pur- 
posely avoided tbat. 

Q. Did not you state awbile ago you frequently did see it ; tbat be 
carried tbe book under bis arm — I am trying to get tbis for tbe benefit 
of tbe committee — tbat be frequently placed it on your table and pro- 
duced it before you, and tbat you were in tbe babit of seeing ? A. 

Yes, sir ; wben be took tbe names from tbe bead of tbe list, but I never 
considered it niy rigbt to take advantage of tbat opportunity. 

Q. Wben be was taking tbe names from tbe bead of tbe list be would 
tben bave to make out tbe certifications in your presence, did be not? — 
A. Not very often ; only on one or two occasions, I think, altogether j 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION 213 

but this I never did do under any circumstance, and that is examine 
that list, what you call an examination of the names on the list, because 
I knew it was an improper thing to do. I think Shidy trusted me as to 
that when he brought his book to give the names, which accidentally 
thus came under my observation. I think he is the last man in the 
world to believe really that 1 would take that list and examine the 
names on it. I certainly would not do it, and I never did do it. 

Q. Then he really kept the list cautiously and carefully. — A. Yes, 
sir 5 I thought he did pretty fairly so far as that eligible list is con- 
cerned. 

Q. Then this eligible list did not cut much figure in the ofiBlce, did it? — 
A. No, sir; I do not think it did. I do not think this whole matter cuts 
much figure in my office one way or another. I think it is very much 
of a tempest in a tea-pot, except so far as it involves the technical opera- 
tions of the civil service. 

Q. And if you consider the civil-service principles as applied to the 
actual working of your office, if there was a vacancy, and you had rec- 
ommendations on file in regard to a man, you consulted them for the 
purpose of ascertaining his character.— -A. Yes, sir, in evidence. 

Q. And you made the appointment accordingly?— A, I would go to 
the list and get the names. 

Q. I mean you consulted for private information'? — A. Yes, sir; and 
it was my private information in part as to qualifications of candidates. 

Q. That is all? — A. I think it is proper for me to state to the com- 
mittee as to the large proportion of the errors in the record of certi- 
fications of eligibles, that is as to how they occurred. This is informa- 
tion that has come to me since the Commission was there. I think it 
explains largely the case of Shidy at any rate, and it certainly explains 
how he came to get into the difficulty by the testimony of the record. 
I have handed to the committee certifications showing how they were 
made. Abundant testimony can be produced in addition to this to 
show that Shidy in his hurry, in his illness (which he claimed), and in his 
indolence, or all three together; in his long dinners, and all that — he did 
not work near as many hours as I did, or half as hard, he often sitting 
day-dreaming in the office about some speculation or something else, 
and the actual fact is, as I have positive information, and which I did 
not know until after the Commission examined me, that when these 
appointments were made he took these slips of paper and made another 
copy and entered it against the names selected on the slips, the word 
"app."; no date on the certification at all, and took these slips into his 
office and threw them into a drawer of his own desk, and that often these 
certifications remained there — the dates show from one day to thirty 
days, one day too many. Now, when Shidy got around to the time when 
he felt disposed to make his report to the Commission, he entered these 
certifications of appointments on his record of certification, and brought 
the open books for me simply to put my signature against the person 
appointed in due form, but in order to conceal — I will scarcely say con- 
ceal — but in order that it might not appear to the Commission that he 
had been neglectful in making his entry or in making his report (I 
think the rule requires the report of certifications to be made the same 
day, but I am not positive, but I think that is the rule), but in order 
that the Commission should not have any occasion to censure him, he 
made the date of the certification to correspond with the date of his re- 
port to the Commission and not with the date of his certification in fact. 
Then the result and the natural proper consequence of all that is, that 



214 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATIOlSr. 

Shidy's record shows many cases — I think thirty- five are reported by 
Mr. Johnson, the president of the board — I think thirty-iive cases in 
which the dates of certification were not the dates of appointment by 
the record. Now, that was no fault of mine, surely. It was simply the 
laxity in his methods of doing business. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. When he sent this book to you, did you notice the date?— A. After 
he sent the book? no, sir; for the reason that I would not have the 
dates in my mind. He would come around at the close of the mouth to 
make up his record, and made that record often from my record of 
appointments for the Department from my letter-book. That was his 
frequent habit, to ask for my letter-book, and from that he would make 
these entries, having before entered the certifications on the record of 
certifications. He would make up the record of appointments from my 
book, and not from his own knowledge of the facts. ISTow, that in great 
part explains the inconsistency of the record, according to my theory. 
Now there is another thing which accounts, possibly in part, to a very 
limited degree, for the discrepancy in the dates of appointment. It is 
the practice in large post-oflices when a vacancy occurs for instance on 
the 1st (and the appointment never can be made instantly, for a day or 
two) to have the succession continuous. There is one annual allow- 
ance for clerk hire by Congress, and in order to keep accounts straight 
at the Department and at the post-office it is necessary that there 
should be no hiatus in the date. 

Q. You said successor ; you mean jDredecessor, continued. You said 
it is necessary to let the successor continue ; you mean the predecessor. 
— A. JSTo, sir; we do not continue. He resigned, for instance, on the 
1st. Now we have an annual allowance for clerks in a certain posi- 
tion in the Department, and the appointment, when made — for instance, 
when made on the 4th of the month — we would put the date so that it 
will take effect three or four days before, so as to make the line contin- 
uous. ' 

Q. Certainly, I understand; it but you mean the man resigning con- 
tinues performing the duties until the new man is installed. — A. Not 
necessarily. We will say the allowance is, for instance, $500 for clerk. 
Suppose, for instance, he is entitled to the $500, and the Department 
allows $500 for that position. Say he clears out and goes to Minnesota, 
for instance, on the 1st of the month, and on the 3d, perhaps, I have 
had my certification to select a man for the place, and it is dated back 
and the name reported to the Department, so as to make $500 apply to 
the whole year upon the annual salary for the place. That is done in 
all post-offices in the country. 

Mr. Stone. One question, if you please, on that, relative to this par- 
ticular point. When Mr. Shidy testified, he stated a fact concerning 
one appointment (the name of the appointee I can not now recollect), 
but this is his testimony upon this : That this person was appointed on 
the 1st of March ; that he was not examined as being in the classified 
service until the 17th of March, and was certified on the 23d of March. — 
A. He was entirely mistaken in the facts. I would like to know the 
name of the man. 

Mr. BoATNBE. He said it dated back to the 1st, and he received 
pay from the 1st. 

The Witness. I think he referred to the fact 

Mr. Stone. Mr. Chairman, I will not press the question. Governor 
Thompson says he is familiar with the facts. 

The Witness. He was never in a civil-service position. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 215 

By Mr. Andrew : 

Q. That letter published in the newspapers here, I did not have time 
to read it through. Was that letter written prior to your severing 
your connection with the post-office or not ? — A. Prior to my 

Q, That letter, the picture in it — the illustrated letter? — A. Yes, sir; 
the examination of the committee was on the 21st of July. 

Q. The letter looked to me, from a hasty glance I made, as if it was 
a reply to some letter written by you after y©u left the office, but I do 
not so understand it. 

The Chairman. It was written prior, it was testified here. 

The Witness. I did not leave the office untd three or four months 

The Chairman. That letter dated January something ? 

The Witness. ISTo ; June. 

The Chairman. It was on that letter Mr. Sliidy was discharged from 
the office by Mr. Paul during July. 

Mr. Andrew. Is not that letter a replv to a letter written by you, 
Mr. Paul ? 

Mr. Paul. No, sir ; oh, no, sir. 

Mr. Andrew. It says it was. 

The Chairman. This is not a letter in reply? 

The Witness. This letter is a cold, unprovoked attack, without prov- 
ocation of any kind. 

Mr. Andrew. I did not read it then. 

The Chairman. Now, Governor Thompson, will you examine the 
witness, or Mr. Eoosevelt? 

Mr. BoATNER (examining letter) . Let me call your attention to this : 

Mr. George H. Paul: I am grieved and surprised at the attack made on me by you 
in tills day's Herold, grieved because my sympathies are always deeply excited by 
misfortune or Injastice, and the picture you present of your beiug led as the lamb to 
the sacrifice, for my sin strikes me as too pathetic for description. I am surprised 
that you ventured to misrepresent facts so broadly, when you must know that I still 
have some papers in my possession, notwithstanding your abstracting certain papers 
from the files during my absence June the 25th. 

This seems to be a reply to some letter in which you attacked him in 
the Herold on that day. — A. He refers undoubtedly to some statement 
by the Herold itself, not under my own signature. I made none. 

Mr. Andrew. That is the reason I asked the question. I thought it 
was a reply to a letter. 

The Chairman. Was it a reply to an interview? 

Mr. Andrew. What I wanted to get at was, what was it a reply to. 

The Witness. It was a reply to some interview or something of that 
kind, in which I probably included Shidy with the testimony of the re- 
port of the Commission. 

The Chairman. Do you remember that that was an interview, that 
article in the Herald ? — A. I know it was not anything directly from 
me, signed or authorized by me in any way. Probably it was an inter- 
view, and in that way got in the paper. 

The Chairman (to Mr. Thompson). Will you now take the witness? 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. Do you remember that on the afternoon when we first began this 
examination in your office in Milwaukee whether or not I asked youhow 
much longer of your term you had to serve, how much more of your 
term you had to serve ? — A. On the commission ? 

Q. How much more of you term as postmaster was unexpired ? — A. 
I told you my service was about up. I made no statement 



216 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. I just want you to answer the questions briefly. — A. I remember 
something was said, to whom I do not know. 

Q. It is immaterial. Well, now, Mr. Paul, did not you say to the Com- 
mission that day substantially this, "1 am already out of office, I am 
merely waiting for my successor to be appointed and qualified "? " — A. No 
sir, nor qualified. 

Q. Well, be appointed *? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You said, " my term is out, I am merely waiting for my successor 
to be appointed ? " — A. " My time is out, " it was used in that sense, 
that I had served four years and over. 

Q. But you did not explain anything to us, you simply made that 
answer. — A. I did not suppose the question was formed to indicate any 
exact information. 

Q. But still you undertook to give the exact information and said " my 
term is out*?" — A. I intended to give simj)ly the information that my 
time of four years of service had expired. 

Q. That is all I want, sir. Now your recollection is not that 

The Witness. And I was asking my successor to be appointed. 

Mr. Thompson. Now, I want to read something you said this morn- 
ing. I take it from the strenographer of the Commission, who is the 
present stenographic clerk of the Commission. If you do not agree en- 
tirely with what he has reported you as saying, I will ask the official 
stenograj)her to read from his notes. 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

Q. By this you stated : 

I did not tnow the act committed l)y Sliidy, that would go directly to the Commis- 
siou if he performed his duty. I do know he undertook to cover the consequences of 
his laziness and indolence and dilatory habits by making dates that were untrue. 

Did you say that this morning? 

The Witness. I do not understand I made precisely that statement. 
Where did that come from ? 

Mr. Thompson. It was taken down by the stenographer for the Com- 
mission.- 

The Stenographer (Mr, Holtz). Yes; and I compared it with the 
notes taken by the reporter for the Post, and they are identical. 

Mr. Thompson. I will call upon the official stenographer to produce 
his notes. 

The Chairman. The official stenographer who reported this this 
morning is not present this afternoon. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you say this, this is the material part : " I did 
know that he [referring to Shidy] undertook to cover the consequences 
of his laziness and indolence and dilatory habits by making dates that 
were not true ? " — A. I have no recollection of saying it this morning. 

Q. I understand two stenographers agree you did say precisely that ? — 
A. That is not my understanding of it. What I intended to say 

Q. Yon did not say that 1 — A. I did not say that. I did not say that I 
did know he undertook- to cover the consequences, etc., but that I had no 
idea at thattime that he undertook to cover the consequences of his lazi- 
ness and indolence and dilatory habits by making dates really not the 
true dates on the book. 

Q. You retract that ; that is if you said it this morning ? — A. I do not 
retract at all. 

Q. But if you did say it you now retract it ? — A. Yes, sir, if I said it. 

Q. Do you remember the afternoon of the first day when you were 
about to leave the office, what you said wben we were about to call 
Shidy in and question Shidy ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q.' What was it?— A. To whom ? 

Q. To any member of the Commission about that, when we were about 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 217 

to seud for Shidy, when we dismissed yoii. — A. The question of Sleutz's 
remarking 1 

Q. I do not wish to waste time on that, hut what you said about 
Shidy as a clerk and about the examination we were about to make ? — 
A. I do not remember. 

Q. I will try to refresh your memory. Did you not say, " Gentlemen, 
be generous and light on Mr. Shidy" — I am only repeating this sub- 
stantially — "he is a faithful and obedient man but overworked?" — A. 
I think I did say something to that effect. I think so still, as to his 
duties as a postal clerk theretofore. 

Q. Thatwasyour opinion, I think, on the 20th of June. — A. Of course, 
I was not then familiar with all the facts. 

Q. 1 simply wanted to call your attention at this time that he was 
" faithful and efficient, but overworked." Do you concur with me in the 
recollection that that was on the 2l8t of June? — A. I knew that from 
the Associated Press, but whether it was on the 20th 

Q. We were there two days ?— A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. We were there about the 20th. In this letter of Shidy, which is 
dated Milwaukee, June 27, 1889, " I am grieved and surprised at the 
attack made on me by you in this day's Herald." And this is six days 
after you said to the Commission that he was a faithful and efficient 
man, but overworked. There must have been some allegation or some 
strictures upon him before that. — A. I think I was interviewed by re- 
porters, and I think I gave the impression that Shidy had betrayed the 
office. 

Q. Betrayed how ? — A. By misrepresentation. 

Q. What I wanted to get at is when you dismissed Shidy ; you dis- 
missed him shortly after that, did you not ? — A. The date of that let- 
ter ■ 

Q. As to that, we can prove that ; before you dismissed Shidy you 
had information which made you believe he had betrayed your office to 
the Commission ? — A. I wish that particularly understood, by misrep- 
resentation. Tes, sir. 

Q. You stated that you dismissed him on account of the newspaper 
letter, and now you admit you knew when you dismissed Shidy that he 
had betrayed the office to the Commission. I would like to be sure 
about that. I do not think I have misrepresented you, sir. — A. I do 
not like the language limited to " betrayed my office to the Commission." 

Q. Say what you think is right. — A. I am very naturally subject to 
misconstruction in this, and if that is the purpose I protest against it. 

Q. It is not my purpose; state what you wish to. — A. I simply wanted 
to say by that time I knew very well, or supposed and believed, that 
Shidy had misrepresented the facts in the case to the Commission. 

Q. That was before you dismissed him ? — A. Yes, sir ; before I dis- 
missed him. 

Q. That is not the exact point. You said Shidy published a list of 
eligibles which you cut out of a newspaper, and a copy of which you 
have shown. How did you know Shidy published that list *? — A. I knew 
it from the fact that the reporter informed me. 

Q. The reporter told you Shidy did, and he did not say Johnston may 
have done it ? — A. JSTo, sir. 

Q. Well now, Mr. Paul, at that time, under the rules of the Commis- 
sion, the lists of eligibles were not published, is not that true that they 
could not be made public? — A. No, sir; they were not to be made 
public. 

Q. You knew the fact that Shidy, a clerk in your employment, had 
violated the rules by publishing the list of eligibles ? — A. i^o, sir ; I did 
not. Mr. Shidy was in the employ of the Commission, 



218 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. But didn't you say a reporter told you Shidy bad published a list 
of the eligibles ? — A. 1 think he did. 

Q. You knew from the reporter that Shidy had given out this 
list"? — A. That Shidy, who was the secretary of the Commission, fur- 
nished this list. 

Q. And this man, who, in violation of the rules and in violation of law, 
had given out this list of eligibles was the same man of whom you spoke 
to the Commission and said, "Gentlemen, do not be hard on Mr. Shidy; 
be light; he is a faithful and efficient clerk, but overworked ? " — A. Gov- 
ernor Thompson, you are using language 1 do not remember; that is, 
as to his faithfulness and efficiency. I never regarded him as an effi- 
cient man. 

Mr. Thompson. I would ask the official stenographer to see what 
Mr. Paul did say. 

The stenographer read as follows : 

A. I think I did say something to that effect. I think so still. 

Mr. Thompson. I did not propose to have a discussion 

The Witness. I think so still. 

Q. You spoke about Shidy's being under the control of the Commis- 
sion. What authority had the Commission over the workings of the 
Milwaukee post-office and Shidy as secretary of the local board "? I 
will ask you, did we pay him any salary ■? — A. i^o, sir. 

Q. Could we dismiss him from the office ? — A. You could recommend 
his dismissal. 

Q. But could we dismiss him 1 — A. Practically, I think you could. If 
your Commission recommended his dismissal, I should have dismissed 
him. 

Q. You would, but we could not dismiss him of our own order if 
you did not concur with us "? — A. Not directly, but you had authority 
to dismiss him from the board of examiners, certainly, and disgrace 
him. 

Q. For which he received no pay for doing extra work °? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. So far as the complaint that he was under the duress of the Com- 
mission was concerned, the fact is the Commission had no control over 
him whatever so far as dismissing him or cutting down his salary is 
concerned ? — A. The condition, and fact as I understood it at that time, 
as expressed by Dr. Shidy to me, was that the Commission could help 
him or hurt him. 

Q. Now I would like the committee to understand, really I did not 
know it when I was at Milwaukee, you appoint your clerks yourself, 
does not the i^ostmaster appoint every clerk of the office? They are 
not appointed by the Postmaster- General are they ? — A. I think that 
is rather a misapprehension existing with the Civil Service Commission. 
They speak all the while of appointments made by the postmaster when 
in fact the postmaster has no more say in appointing the man than the 
man in the moon, and the Civil Service Commission did not know it 
and did not know anything 

Q. We will be glad to learn if you will be kind enough to tell us ? — 
A. The postmaster can not appoint a boy a messenger, he can not ap- 
point anybody. 

Q. Who does the appointing"? — A. The Department. The post- 
master recommends simply, that is all, and the law is 

Q. Do I understand you to say that in a classified i>lace in that office 
that the Post-Office Department makes the appointment and not the 
postmaster? — A, Certaiuly, even special-delivery messenger boys. The 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 219 

matter is submitted to the Department, tbe Department makes the a,])- 
pointmeut, aucl then he is put to work. 

Q. Has not the postmaster in an oiiice as hirge as the office in Mil- 
waukee what you call lump sum, where he employs so many clerks, all 

that is necessary A. Yes, sir ; there is a lump allowance made by 

the allowance division of the Post Office Department, a lump allowance 
for running that office for the various expenses, so much for clerk hire, 
so much for money-order office, so much for carriers, etc. 

Q. I do not wish to interrupt you, but you say the appointments were 
made by the Postmaster-General °? — A. The appointments T>robably are 
made by the heads of divisions. In the divisions, for instance, the car- 
riers are all appointed by Mr. Bates. That is, in his name as superin- 
tendent of the free-delivery system, and other appointments are made by 
other divisions of the Post-Office Department. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Eight there let us have a fair understanding. Is it not the rule 
virtually that it is the postmaster that makes the recommendations and 
his recommendations are always concurred in ? — A. No, sir ; not al- 
ways. 

Q. Well, as the general rule, with very few exceptions ? — A. I have 
had orders from the Department to remove and I have had 

Mr. EoosEVELT. Mr. Paul, let me 

The Chairman. I would like to get at this thing. How many ap- 
pointments have you made during the four years you have been in office 
that has not been concurred in by the Department 1 — A. Very few. 

Q. Well, how many ? — A. A number. 

Q. Can. you give us an instance ? — A. Yes, sir ; I can give you an 
instance. 

Q. Well how many '? — A. I can not tell precisely, but I should think 
several. I can give you one instance and that is the superintendent of 
the free delivery who was removed on the order of the Department. 

Q. In regard to the system of removals and appointments when you 
recommend for appointment, say, the superintendent of the free delivery 
or the superintendent of carriers, or any clerk, or any letter carrier, 
how many were rejected by the Department on your recommendation; 
*how many appointees were rejected "? — ^A. I do not think they ever re- 
jected one. 

Q, That is what I wanted to get at. 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. Do not the postmasters employ the clerks ? — A. They employ them 
under authority of the Dejiartment. 

Q. Who dismissed Dr. Shidy? — A. The Department properly. 

Q. The Department properly? — A. Yes, sir 5 in this case the letter 
was sent to Dr. Shidy, and the facts were immediately reported to the 
Department, and the act is confirmed. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Did you dismiss him ? — A. Yes ; just as you 

Mr. Thompson. Who gave the order ? 

The Chairman. We want to have a fair understanding. 

The Witness. Certainly. 

The Chairman. In the workings of these offices I think I understand 
something how appointments are made by postmasters, and how re- 
movals are made. They are made solely on the recommendation of the 



220 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

postmasters, are they nof? — A. ]^ot solely. I do not think — the De- 
partment always reserves the right 

Q. Oh, certainly. — A. But practically the postmaster recommends and 
his recommendation is ordinarily approved. 

Q. Every recommendation that you have made during the four years 
you have been in of&ce for appointment has been concurred in, has it 
not ? — A. I think so. 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. I only wanted to bring out for the information of the committee 
the point in regard to the statement that Mr. Shidy complained that he 
was under the duress of the Commission, that really the only authority 
the Civil Service Commission had over him was to deprive him of his 
secretaryship of the local board of examiners, which gave him no pay 
and which only added additional work ; that so far as his dismission 
from the office was concerned that you had entire control of that mat- 
ter? — A. Yes, sir ; that is as far as recommending process is concerned. 

Q. And you did control him virtually *?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In that conversation in the post-office between the Commission 
and yourself, I think it was on the morning of the second day^or possi- 
bly it was the afternoon of the first day, did not Mr. Eoosevelt make this 
statement to you in regard to the irregularities of certification and ap- 
poiMments to which your attention was called; did he not say substan- 
tially, "Mr. Paul, these are very grave charges and we would like to 
hear any explanation you have to make ?" — A. Not as to myself, ac- 
cording to my understanding, sir ; not at all. 

Q. But we were speaking of appointments which you alone could 
make f — A. Well, sir ; I supposed the Commissioner referred in general 
remarks to the methods of the board in examining certifications. 

Q. He handed these papers, I remember particularly, and read from 
them, and do you not know Mr. Eoosevelt said, which was concurred in 
by his colleagues, ^'Mr. Paul, these are very grave charges and we 
would be glad to hear any explanation you have to make ? " — A. I do 
not know whether Mr. Eoosevelt said it or not. 

Q. Do you deny that he could have said it I — A. No, sir ; he said 
a great many things that I can not remember, as he talks very rap- 
idly. 

Q. But you do not deny it *? — A. I think he did almost the whole 
talking. 

Q. Was your office inspected at any time, a very little before or a 
little after the Commission was there, by a post-office inspector 1 — A. 
It was inspected frequently all through my term of office. 

Q. Do you remember an inspection made by a man named Fleming 
about that time ? — A. I do not think Fleming came there until after- 
wards. 

Q. About that time ? — A. After that. 

Q. Have you ever seen Fleming's report of your office ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. You say you resigned and your resignation was accepted ? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know what the letter accepting your resignation con- 
tained ; what was the purport of it ? — A. Of my letter ? 

Q. The letter from the Postmaster-General, accepting your resigna- 
tion. — A.. Yes, sir; I do. 

Q. Will you be kind enough to tell the committee about what it was. — 
A. I treated that letter very lightly for several reasons. After the 
President 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 221 

Mr. Andrew. Is this the contents of the letter you are giving now "? — 
A. I am trying to get at it so the circumstances will be better under- 
stood. It was intimated to me — published by the Associated Press — 
that the President would accept my resignation. Some time afterwards 
I received a letter from the Postmaster-General, who was no authority 
in the case more than any child in the country, and he said to me after 
notifying me of the acceptance of the resignation — he said to me in 
substance this : " If you had not resigned, I would have removed you 
on the charges of the Civil Service Commission hero referred to, and 
on account of the report of the inspector." 

Q. That is all I wanted, sir. Then I understand you to say that the 
Postmaster-General stated in this letter that if you had not resigned 
you would have been removed on charges made by an inspector of the 
Post-Office Department and you never saw the charges that were sub- 
mitted by the Civil Service Commission ? — A. Ko, sir ; I would not have 
the slightest respect for that kind of charges made. The inspector 
was not entitled to the slighest respect. 

Q. Do you mean to say A. There were five or six inspectors sent 

there in succession in order to trump up charges against my office. The 
man you referred to refused to accept any testimony where he could 
get it and went about the streets at night and called on persons he sup- 
posed or presumed would be hostile to me to try to cook up a case, 
j^ow, I do not fear that kind of testimony from any man living or dead. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I would ask permission of "the com- 
mittee for Major Webster to continue the cross-examination of this 
witness. 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. Do you remember making a statement to me when I was at your 
office in September, 1888 ? — A. Yes, sir ; I remember the examination. 

Q. You read that statement through carefully and signed it. — A. If I 
signed it I certainly did, but I do not definitely recollect. I was trying 
to recollect as to that fact whether I did sign that testimony, and my 
impression is I finally did it. I will take your word for it, Mr. Webster. 

Q. You added a short paragraph at the end of the report and then 
signed it ? — A. 1 remember distinctly that report, I added something or 
wrote something, declaring my right absolutely to remove so far as the 
postmaster has the right to remove the employes under me without in- 
vestigation by the Commission ; that I was not responsible to them. 

Q. You have just stated here that you did not have access to the 
register of the eligibles, that you did not see them, and that you had no 

means of seeing them. Do you remember saying to me A. I do 

not understand I made that statement. I simi)ly stated the facts as 
they were. That Shidy frequently brought the register around where 
1 could have seen it, but I never made any regular examination, what 
you would call an examination of that register, not that I had never 
seen the register at all. 

Q. Did not you state to me in that examintation that you sometimes 
went to that register when Mr. Shidy had gone to dinner to get infor- 
mation from it ? — A. That is not my impression as to the fact or state- 
ment ; the statement would show if it is 

Q. That is the statement that you made. — A. I may have done so by 
his authority, but never without his authority. 

Q. And when he was gone to dinner, when he was out of the office, 
you stated to me you sometimes went there. — A. In his absence the 
registry of the eligibles was in charge of his assistant and the two 



222 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

clerks in that same office, and they declare they never knew of my 
doing so, making oaths, or they would make oath if summoned be- 
fore this committee. I do not pretend, I can not say 

The Chairman. His question is whether you stated to Mr. Webster 
at the time of the examination that you did examine the register during 
the absence of Mr. Shidy. Did you make such a statement to him at 
that time or not ? — A. I do not remember making that statement, I 
think there is some misapprehension about it. 

Mr. Webster. You read that statement through fully and made al- 
terations in it, or alterations were made at your suggestion, and you 
finally signed it ? 

A. Yes, sir ; that was a very long statement and very difficult to read 
critically. 

The Chairman. Have you that statement here ? 

The Witness. I will not say I did not, but if I did so, I either 
ought to or should explain that I never examined that register for the 
purpose of making selections from the register. 

Q. Do you remember making this statement to me, that you made a 
personal investigation in regard to the character, etc., of candidates, to 
see what men would properly be eligible for appointment soon after 
you knew they were likely to be certified to you for the next vacancy, 
and that you endeavored generally to keep well posted in advance. 
You say you did not have access to the register and did not know the 
order in which they stood upon that register, then can you explain how 
you could do that, how you could make this examination in advance of 
that certification, and how you could keep well posted in advance? — 
A. Just as all business men do. It is a very simple affair. The appli- 
cants for examination were filing into my office always to file their ap- 
plications, and I usually turned them directly over to the secretary, or 
else sent them with a clerk of my office directly to the secretary to get 
the matter out of my hands. Of course these applicants 

Q. That does not seem to be an answer to the question at all. I 
wanted to know how you were able to make this investigation in ad- 
vance of the certifications, if you did not know of the certification in 
advance. — A. if ot always. 

Q. How were you enabled to do that ; how were you enabled to tell 
of the certification in order to do this in advance ? — A. For instance, 
a man coming to the office and would not be familiar with the civil 
service 

Q. That has not anything to do with answering the question. I w,ant 
to know how you were enabled to make an investigation in advance of 
the certification ; how you would know what certifications were to be 
made, and when or what certification was to be made, for, as you say, 
you kept well posted in advance in the order of certifications; how 
could you do this if you knew nothing of the order of certifications f — 
A. For instance, if a man makes application for appointment, or would 
seek appointment there, I took it into consideration, and the question 
naturally would come up in regard to the qualification of the man. It 
does not mean I have been examining the list of eligibles to see if he 
was to be appointed at all, and such inference is not in accordance with 
the facts. 

Q. That is your own knowledge ? — A. Yes, sir. Such a thing is not 
in accordance with the facts. Such an investigation as that is proper, 
I think. I think all this comes from the fact that the Commission has 
heretofore assumed that every x)ostmaster is a rascal instead of assum- 
ing that he is trying to do the best he can. 



CIVIL SEE VICE INVESTIGATION. 223 

Q. You are familiar with the rules and regulations of the Civil Serv- 
ice Commission ? — A. Well, I can not say that 1 am as familiar with 
rules and regulations as I ought to be. I am familiar with many of 
them, most of them. 

Q. Do you know there is a regulation of the Commission, or there 
was during the time you were in olfice, probibiting postmasters from 
giving out any applications or receiving applications from candidates 
or would-be candidates'? — A. I think I was first made aware of that 
by yourself. I had nothing to do with it. Men would come in there ; 
Shidy brought applications there in my office and kept them on his 
desk probably, in all kinds of ways for anybody who came after them. 

Q. Shidy brought them to your desk 1 — A. Personally brought appli- 
cations and left them at my desk, and they were left at the window of 
the registry desk and anywhere so they could be circulated and people 
could get them. 

Q. Did you not state in your statement made to me that you fre- 
quently sent for these a]3plications to Mr. Shidy and gave them out to 
the parties ? — A. I frequently sent men for them or asked the clerk for 
them, or to conduct a man to the proper place to get the application. 
That is what I did, I do not know what I said. 

Q. Were these applications returned to you after they had been filled 
up •? — A. Sometimes, a fact for which I am not responsible, and further. 
Major Webster, an applicant might come in and leave an application 
on my table and I would send it to the place where it belonged. I am 
not going to stand there with a club to keep men out of my office. 

Q. Did these parties state what they wanted in your office — what, po- 
sition they were willing to have ? — A. There was no discussion of that 
kind. 

Q. You stated to me in your examination that all such inquiries natur- 
ally came to you about parties who wanted places, that you necessarily 
knew about these parties before they were certified to you. — A. That is 
perfectly legitimate. There is no other way to do the business or to 
keep the stream of office beggars out of that office except by locking 
the door. You know how many come making application for place, but 
it is a thing I had nothing to do with, and it is a thing I always said, 
" It is not my appointment. You must go to Dr. Shidy, fill up your ap- 
plication, and pass your examination, and that not until then will the 
question come before me." 

Q. You admitted to me you knew all about it before they were certi- 
fied. — A. I admit just that fact, that a man comes here and applies for 
an office; I know him from that date; at least I recognize that man as 
an applicant for a place in my office, and I naturally in the course of 
business know something about his associations and character. 

Q. You knew his politics? — A. No, sir; I never inquired as to his 
politics ; I very rarely ever knew his politics. 

Q. If you did not inquire his politics you were informed in regard to 
them? 

Mr. BoATNEE. You ought to any way. 

A. No, sir ; unless accidentally. I never in my life asked a man his 
politics who made an application for an appointment. Never. The 
record shows I never did; the record shows that. I do not see any oc- 
casion for trying to bring up 

Q. Do you remember Thomas F. Keaveny ? — A. Thomas F. Keaveny ; 
yes, sir. 

Q. lie was certified to you for the position of stamper on the carriers' 
register on the 20th of January, 1888, three other carriers' names being 



224 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

included in that certification, ail of whom had higher averages than 
Keaveny. You made no selections from that certification. Can you 
explain why you did not make a selection when a vacancy existed at 
that time in the force of stampers ? — A. I think I can, but I must pro- 
test, Major Webster, against being asked details on what consideration 
I have given as to the administration of that office for nearly five years, 
nearly five years ago. 

Q. I want you to explain why you did not make a selection on the 
certification made to you for the position of stamper, all the names on 
that certification being from the carriers' register, a higher register of 
eligibles — I want to know why you did not make a selection, there being 
a vacancy at that time. — A. I do not believe there is a man in the United 
States who could answer that from recollection. As to the case of 
Keaveny, Mr. Johnston, one of the board of-examiners, has volunteered 
an affidavit. I have not the original affidavit here, but Mr. Keaveny 
himself has made an affidavit afitecJting the statement directly. If you 
want these affidavits I will furnish them. After the taxing of my re- 
collection to a mere frivolous matter of that kind I do 

Q. As to whether it is frivolous or not is immaterial. I want to know 
whether you recollect anything about that appointment and why you 
did not make that appointment at that time. — A. What was the date 
of the appointment f 

Q. It was certified to you on the 20th day of January, 1888 ; four car- 
riers were certified to you that time for selection at that time, and no 
selection was made from that certification. It stands ujiou the certifi- 
cation book that no selection was made. — A. Do you know the number 
of the certification *? 

Q. It is number fifty-four. — A. Well, sir, I can give you the substance 
of Mr. Johnston's statement to me in regard to the condition referred to. 
It seems that Shidy for some reason entered the name of Keaveny on 
the book for certification number fiftj^-four, and that in his own hand- 
writing he marked opposite there " void." You must ask Mr. Shidy 
about that, how that record is made. 

Q. It appears from the record, after your failure to select a stamper 
from the certification of January 20, nearly a month afterwards, on 
the 18th of February, the name of Thomas F. Keaveny was again cer- 
tified to you from the carriers' register for the position of stamper, 
and this time three names from the stamper register were certified 
to you, that all three were higher averages than Keaveny, and the 
three carriers which were certified on certification fifty-four were left 
off. On this occasion you selected Mr. Keaveny, with a very low aver- 
age. Can you explain that ? — A. I think I can. I think I have the 
explanation among my pajDcrs. I wish to ask the direct jjurpose of this 
inquiry ; I am not being investigated. I do not so understand it. 

Mr. EoosEVBLT. Who is being investigated, I would like to find 
out? 

The Witness. I would like to know if I have got to go through your 
investigation the second time ; if so, I decline to do it. 

The Chairman. Mr. Paul, from your testimony given here to-day 
your testimony as taken will show that the Commission had acted very 
harshly with you, to say the least of it, and brought charges against 
you which they ought not to have brought against you. They are un- 
der examination and they have the right to ask you such questions to 
show they had good reason for coming to the conclusion to which they 
did. If you do not remember it you can state so, or if you have rea- 
sons to give you may state them. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 225 

Mr. BoATNBR. This is understood as a cross-examiuation of the wit- 
ness; it is really a cross-examination. 

The Witness. I have not introduced Mr. Keaveny. I made a broad 
statement here, which I have sworn to, that I never made any appoint- 
ment except upon certification, and the Commission proposes to re- 
vise 

Mr. EooSEVELT. You stated, you made the broad statement that you 
had never made an appointment except upon certitication A. Pre- 
vious certification. 

Mr. EooSEVBLT. That you never have made any appointment ex- 
cept upon previous certification ? 

The Witness. Previous certification, certainly, sir; no appointment 
in the classified service. I think you had bettor let Mr. Webster get 
on ; if you give me time, that is all 1 ask — all I ask is time. 

The Chairman. But you state you really never made any appoint- 
ment at all ; that you made a recommendation, according to j^our state- 
ment. You have said no postmaster makes appointments. 

The Witness. Made any selection, I should say. I deny in toto the 
allegation that I made selection j)revious to certification. Phis is a 
point I want to make quite clear now. If the Commission 

Mr. Webster. What I ask is, why you did not select Keaveny from 
the certification of January ? ISTow, 1 ask, how you happened to make 
a selection of that man with a very low average from a certification con- 
taining only one name from the carriers' register with three names 
thrown in, perhaps to pad, from the stampers' register. 

The Witness. Let us see what Keaveny says. 

Mr. Boatner. Allow me to ask for information. Has the appoint- 
ing officer the right to select any from the list, or is he required to select 
the highest? 

Mr. Webster. He is allowed to select one from the list. 

Mr. Boatner. Can he select any one ? 

Mr. Webster. Any one. It is only in taking these two certifica- 
tions together that I ask that question. 

The Witness. What is the question involved in this matter ? 

Mr. Webster. It appears from the record that after your failures to 
select a stamper on certification on January 20, that a month after, on 
February 18, the name of Thomas F. Keaveny was again certified to 
you for the position of stamper from the carriers' register, together witli 
three others who were taken from the stampers' register, being higher 
averages than Keaveny. 

The Witness. What is the date ? 

Mr. Webster. The first was on January the 20th, and the last was 
on February the 18th. 

The Witness. I was trying to get the first certification. 

Mr. Webster. January the 20th. 

The Witness. W hat evidence have you he was certified '? 

Mr. Webster. The certification book. 

The Witness. The certification record shows the whole thing is one 
of Shid.\^'s blunders. For instance, here is Mr. Keaveny's statement. 
State of Wisconsin — this is a letter-press copy of his affidavit submitted 
to the President. The letter gives 

Mr. Webster. I did not ask that. I only wane to know about the 
selection, why Keaveny was not selected from the first certification on 
January the 20th, when a vacancy then existed, but he was selected 
from another certification on February the 18ih, the first certiticatiou 
being all names of carriers for stamper place, the second certitication 
3117 15 



226 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

having three from the stampers' register with higher averages and one 
carrier with a lower average. 

The Witness. Does the book show thatKeaveny was certified on the 
20th of January ? 

Mr. Webster. Yes, sir. 

The Witness. Does the book show that ? 

Mr. Webster. Yes, sir. 

The Witness. In Shidy's handwriting also that no appointment was 
made, marked " void." 

Mr. Webster. It is in his handwriting, i)robably. 

The Witness. He has never reported to me, as a matter of course. 

Mr. Webster. The certification book shows that afterwards you did 
sign certificate for his appointment. 

The WiiNESS. Subsequently 1 

Q. On February the 18th you made a selection from that oue. — A. 
January the 20th, No. 54 — Mr. Keaveny does not appear at all. 

Mr. V/EBSTER. His appointment? 

The Witness. He does not appear, no, sir ; he does not appear to 
certify. 

Mr. Webster. The certification No. 54 contained four names of 
carriers for stamper place 1 

The Witness. I will read you what Mr. Keaveny says, 

Mr. EoosEVELT. Here are the names: Gumming, Smith, Gaulke, 
and Keaveny. Gumming, 89; Smith, 87; Gaulke, 82^; Keaveny, 82. 

Mr. Webster. On February the 18th, No. 65, we" have the ihree 
highest carriers dropped entirely, and we have three from the stampers' 
register put on with Keaveny, and Keaveny is appointed. 

Mr. Stone. Was Keaveny on both certifications ? 

Mr. Webster. On both certifications and appointed on the second 
certification in preference to the three carriers with higher averages 
who were on the first. 

Mr. Stone. What I was trying to ascertain was that on the first 
certification would it have been proper for the postmaster to have se- 
lected Keaveny? 

Mr. Webster. Gertainly, I was going to ask that very question in 
in a moment. He was taken from the higher registry, and could not 
be put upon the lower registry, and could not be appointed to a lower 
place without his consent, and I was going to ask that question later. 
I want to know now in regard to his selection. Vf hy it came about 
that he was not appointed on the first certification, it being all proper, 
and that a month afterwards he was appointed, the same man was 
selected, the vacancy existing in the first certification as in the second. 
I want to find out why you did not make a selection from a certification 
that seems to be perfectly straight, as far as the book shows, and on 
another occasion took the name of a lower eligible from that certifica- 
tion? 

The Witness. You are asking me now about Shidy's matters. Was 
this certified at the same time Mr. Shidy entered it upon the record? 

Mr. Stone. As far as this question is concerned, I would like to un- 
derstand it while we are going along. Did you have the right on that 
certification made in January, the 20th, according to the theory of the 
Gommissiou, did you then have the right to select Keaveoy at all, or 
any man of the four if you desired to do so ? 

The Witness. Not under ordinary circumstances; I certjiinlj' would 
not. 

Q. But did you have the right to do it; under the rules had you tUe 
r:.H:t todoit? 



CIVIL SEE VICE INYESTIGATION. 227 

The Witness. Yes, sir, at the time when there was 

Mr. Stone. The statement, Mr. Paul, is this, on January the 20th, 
four names were certified to you, of which Keaveny was one, and that he 
had the lowest standing' of the four certified and you did not select 
either of these names but postponed apparently the selection for a 
month. 

Mr. BoATNEK. He says that certification is marked " void." 

Mr. Stone. And then four other names were certified to you of which 
Keaveny was one again. 

The Witness. At this time four names were entitled to be certified if 
I understand — I do not see what the question is. In the first place 

Mr. Webster. There was a certification on that book, you could 
take under the rule one person for the position, you could take anyone 
of the four from the top to the bottom, but you are bound to take one 
from the certification, and you took no one, it is marked " void." I want 
you to explain in that special thing. 

The Witness. I suppose you — I want to know if you intend to hold 
me responsible for void certifications of Shidy's which were never made 
at all. 

Mr. Webster. The certification was there in the book, you ought to 
have known why it was marked void. You had the book before you. 



March 4, 1890. 
GEORGE H. PAUL — Examination resumed. 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. You stated yesterday that you remembered making a statement 
before me, that you read it over carefully, amended it, and then signed 
it. — A. That is the case. 

Q. That statement made by you, as signed, was a true statement? — 
A. I have no doubt that it was supposed to be true at the time. I think 
that answer should be qualified. I was talking of things of which I 
knew but little. Questions relating to the manner of the action of the 
board of examiners, and my disposition being, as far as possible, and 
as far as I consistently and properly could, to apologize for the action 
of that board and the action of Mr. Shidy. 

Q. Then every material point of that statement was ratified by you ? — 
A. That the fact was not known to me is the point I want to bring out. 
I was talking of things of which I knew but little. 

Q. I will make the statement which I made yesterday, in a little fnllcr 
form, and I wish you would pay strict attention to it. It will state all 
the points I wish to bring out. — A. I wish to know whether the state- 
ment relates to matters concerning my duty, or the duty of somebody 
else? 

Q, It relates to your action with the post-office, and your duties in 
that office. The matters a^ppear from the records of the office. 



228 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 

(4) It appears from the records of your office that on the 8th of De 
cember, 1887, a vacancy existed in the grade of stamper. To fill this 
vacancy four names from tbe carrier register were certified to y,ou on 
the 20th of January, 1888, certificate No. 54. In your statement before 
me you said that these carrier eligibles, or at least two of them, had 
consented to take lower grade (stamper) positions. The name with the 
lowest average on this certification was Thomas F. Keaveny. You 
made no selection. The vacancy was apparently not filled at this 
time. On February 18, 1888, another certification, No. 55, was made 
for the position of stamper, which contained three names from the 
stamper register proper, two of them with very high averages, and 
the name of Thomas F. Keaveny, the carrier eligible from the pre- 
ceding certification with the lowest average, although there was at 
least one other carrier on that former certification who had, accord- 
ing to your admission, signified his willingness to accept a lower place, 
and whose name should therefore have been placed upon certification 
No. 55 instead of Keaveny's. You selected Keaveny and dated the ap- 
poiufment back to December 8, 1887. 

On February 18, 1888, another certification. No. 56, was made to fill 
a position of stamper, which contained the names of three eligibles for 
stampers and one name from the carriers' register, not one of those 
which had been used on the canceled certification No. 54, but one with 
a very much lower average, only 68, Michael Cramer, whom you se- 
lected, and dated his appointment February 1, 1888. to fill the vacancy 
caused by the promotion of Keaveny to the position of carrier. 

On February 18, 1888, a third certification of the same date. No. 57, 
was made for the position of stamper, on which appeared two names, 
with high averages, from the stamper register proper, and two names, 
Eaush and Reilly, with very low averages, the eighih and ninth in 
order, from the clerk's register. The names of the carriers from the 
unused certification 54, with high averages, being kept out. You se- 
lected from this certification one of the clerks, Eaush. 

On February 18, 1888, a fourth certification of the same date. No. 58, 
was made to fill a position of carrier on which appear the three names 
from carrier register left over from unused certification of 54, together 
with one name from the clerk register — Eeilly, the same name, with low 
average, that was used on certification 57 for stamper place. You se- 
lected Eeilly. 

On February 18, 1888, a fifth certification of the same date, No. 59, 
was made for the position of stamper, on which appeared one name 
from the stamper register pit)per and three names from the carrier reg- 
ister, two of them being names from the unused certification No. 54, 
and a new name, Weber, with a very low average, which had already 
been certified as many times as the rules permitted. You selected 
Weber. 

On February 18, 1888, a sixth certification on the same date. No. 60-, 
was made to fill a position of stamper, which contained four names from 
the carriers' register, three of them being the names left over from un- 
used certification No. 54, one of whom, Louis Smith, was finally selected. 

By these seven certifications, Nos. 54 to 60 inclusive, five eligibles for 
stamper, the most of them with very high averages, and one eligible for 
carrier, with a very high average, were pnt out of the way by certifica- 
tion—were used for " padding " in certifications for the positions for 
which they had actually been examined, while men who had passed for 
other ]>ositious, but with very low averages, were appointed to theplaces — 
four carriers and one clerk eligible were appointed as stampers, and one 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 229 

clerk eligible was appointed as carrier. Not one securer! the position 
for which he was examined. Please explain tlie manner in which these 
appointments were made. 

A. So far as it relates to my duty, I wish to say broadly in the first 
place, as a broad fact, that in no case have I made any selection from 
any certification made to me except in the manner provided by law and 
the rules. If you will allow me, I will state the facts. Major Webster 
will concede that the duties of a postmaster are simply to make selec- 
tions from the certifications. I wish to reply to thati)roposition, that 
in no case was any selection made by me for any appointment until 
after the certification came to me and the selection was made. About 
those certifications, of course I can not know. I have no official knowl- 
edge, and I am not permitted to have any. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. The committee is not inquiring for your official knowledge. You 
have used that term several times. — A. Well, personal knowledge. As 
to this record I had no personal knowledge, and can not properly have, 
and that covers a very large proportion of these questions. I have had 
since some knowledge of the subject from the examiners, knowledge 
founded on the examination of the testimony. If you will allow me to 
take a blank certification, I will give the committee to understand how . 
easy it is to introduce confusion into these certifications. The certifi- 
cation made of four names, for instance. There are three now, under 
the rule of the Board. Then the balance of the names are carried 
along and selections are made of the new names until each person when 
not appointed has been certified three times. The introduction of an 
error, for instance, in certification 145 creates confusion in all the suc- 
ceeding certifications, does it nof? 

Mr. Webster. It probably would. 

The Witness. I wish to say that no testimony in my possession, sworn 
to by the secretary of the board of examiners, did make in that case an 
egregious error in a certification, to start with. I, perhaps, ought to 
read Captain Johnson's affidavit on that point. 

Q. I want to get from you an explanation of how you made these ap- 
pointments. A vacancy existed on the 8th of December, and a certifi- 
cation was made on the 20thL of January, 1887. — A. Certification was 
made on the 20th of January. I want to see if I understand it, siftcel 
have stated positively no appointment was made except from the regular 
certification. Your certification No. 54, Thomas F. Keaveny, was made 
Januaj-y 20. The secretary of the board himself, Shidy, on the face of 
that, says that it is an improper entry. It was, in fact, as I understand 
it here from the testimony of Captain Johnson, that no such certification 
occurred. That is all I have to do with that question. In Shidy's own 
handwriting it stands on the record, which you have seen. It is written 
" void" all the way through. ' 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. How did the man get the appointment? — A. At the time that cer- 
tifications was made Keaveny had already been appointed nearly a 
month, and am I here to be responsible for such blunders as that ? Not 
at all. 

Mr. Roosevelt. You have said here that when the first certification 
was made to you, Keaveny had already been appointed a month. 

The Witness. Certification number 54 marked "void" on the record, 
and still you assume it to have been made. 



230 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIOATION, 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. That is your explanation in full of that point. Please go right on 
to Ko. GO. — A. That changes your whole group. 

Q. No, it does not. There is a group of seven. 

The Chairman. This is a matter between you and the postmaster, 
and has already been repeatedly explained. 

Q. 1 will leave that point, and go on to the other that will take 55, 56, 57, 
58, 59, and 60. Please explain how tour carriers and one clerk were ap- 
pointed stampers, when the original register of stampers, which was put 
out of the way by these certifications to get rid of them, while these other 
men, carriers and clerks, were appointed stampers and a, clerk w^as ap- 
pointed carrier, not one man being selected from the proper register. That 
is the point I am trying to get at in this question ? — A. So far as I know 
the facts in the case I am willing to give them to you with a great deal of 
pleasure. You know perfectly well that you are talking of matters of 
which I can not know anything. I simply know certitications as they 
come to me. I do not know how they are made. I would be guilty if 
I did. 

Q. Ton do not know how it happened that these four carriers and 
one clerk were appointed to stampers' positions'? Can you explain this 
at alH — A. I do not know but what I can, if you will give me the facts. 
I do not propose to be held responsible for Shidy's certifications at all 
in that particular. It is full of blunders. 

Q. You do not know how it happened that these clerks and carriers 
were appointed to places below the place for which they were ex- 
amined?— A. I know the jirinciple on which it may have been done. 
He was acting under the construction of the letter of 1885. 

Q. You do not know anything about it. I want to find out how you 
made these selections of carriers and clerks 5 instead of taking the stamp- 
ers — you made the appointments. Did you take all these men from a 
higher grade ? — A. No. 

Q. You selected them! — A. They were selections of yours. You 
made the appointments by the secretary, in due order. If you wish to 
have me explain some of the blunders, it is possible that I can do so. 

Mr. Webster. Not on this point. 

The Witness. I think it would throw some light on this whole mat- 
ter to read Keaveny's letter. 

Q. The certification shows that Thomas F. Keaveny was appointed 
to the position of stamper December 8, 1887, and promoted to the posi- 
tion of carrier February 1, 1888, but not certified to you by the secretary 
of the board until February 18, 1888. Canyon explain how it happened 
that he was selected from the book as a stamper after he had beem pro- 
moted to the position of carrier? — A. Keaveny, who was duly certified 
in December by the secretary of the board, and appointed from the cer- 
tified list as a stamper, is the first appointment to my personal knowl- 
edge and positive recollection. 

By the Chairman : 
Q. Does it appear so on the certification book '? — A. That I can not 
say. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. Was it not your duty to sign the certifications ? — A. When pre- 
sented to me. It is not my duty to hunt up the certification book. 

Q. Was it not your duty to sign it? — A. No, sir, not until it was 
presented to me. 



OlViL SEfeVICE INVESTlG^ATION. ^31 

By Mr, Webster : 

Q. Was it not yonr duty to sign tbe certification book? — A. It was, 
when I was called upon to do so by the secretary of the board. Allow 
me to make a little explanation : It appears from the statement of Gap- 
tain Johnson and others, and Mr. Keaveny himself (but especially 
Captain Johnson), that Mr. Shidy omitted to enter his original certifi- 
cation in its i^roper place on the record. I am not explaining my action, 
but yhidy's. He made no certification in the proper form, as I now 
understand it. It was on one of those little slips, and he carried it oft' 
in his pocket, and never entered it on the record. Subsequently, he 
proposed to enter it on his record, and when he got to JSTo. 54, he i)ro- 
posed to enter this certification, which contained the name of Keaveny 
as an appointee. His practice was at that time — say at the time of the 
entering of the record — to enter from slips. Now he got that entry on 
liis record as under date of January 20. Then it occurred to him, with- 
out my knowledge at all, that Keaveny had been appointed a month 
before, on the 8th of December; and then Shidy, supposing he had. 
already entered his certification, and did not wish to make it twice, 
made this memorandum: "No appointment; void." It is written 
right across it. This is the way the first and original error occurred in 
the case. It is clearly by his own negligence, and of course entirely 
unknown to me. This is a chapter of blunders by Shidy, which the 
committee ought to see. After having made this entry there, and find- 
ing the appointment was made December 8, instead of January 20, he 
finds on looking back that the certification was made and entered from 
this little slip which he carried around in his pocket. So he goes and 
enters No. 55, containing the certification of Keaveny. Who was with 
him I do not know. He enters against that name on the record, "ap- 
pointed stamper December 8, 1887." It is in his own handwriting. He 
brings that to me to sign, and that I did sign. That explains the whole 
matter, so far as I can. 

Q. You did not examine that as to dates'?— A. I never did. 

Q. As a business man, of the business experience that you have 
spoken of to the committee, you think you allowed a subordinate to 
hoodwink you and make false certifications right under your nose? — 
A. No, sir; I wish to make this point: Is it allowable to ask me to ex- 
plain the action of the examining board in matters which I can not 
know? 

Mr. BoATNER. Anything you do not know, we do not wish you to 
state. Anything you do know from information, you can speak of. Of 
course, no witness is expected to answer beyond what he knows. 

The Witness. I protest against this commission holding me respon- 
sible for any action of the board of examiners. 

Mr. LiND, It is the committee who will hold you responsible for your 
testimony and action. 

The Witness. Certainly; but I have not the slightest objection to 
your inquiring into all the blunders of the secretary. 

By Mr. LiND : 
Q. At the time you signed this certification in February, did you 
know that Keaveny was already in the service ? — A. I knew of his ap- 
pointment. 

By Mr. Boatnbr : 
Q. Was your attention called to the date ? — A. No, sir; 1 think the 
dates were made after my signature. 



232 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By Mr. Lind : 

Q. Did yoLi sign that certification of the record in December ? — A. 
No, sir ; no record was made in December. 

Q. When did you sign the record ? — A. When the book was brought 
to me. 

Q. In February? — A. I presume so. 

Q. You say at the time you knew that Keaveny had been in the 
service for several weeks ? — A. Yes, sir ; that is the fact in the history 
of the case. 

Q. Did you know that that was contrary to law f — A. I do not know 
that it is contrary to law. There is no rule that I know of which requires 
my signature until the secretary makes a report. It is entirely in the 
hands of the secretary. 

Q. You say that you signed this record when it was presented to you 
in February ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What I want to get at is whether you knew or suspected that this 
was an irregular ])ractice ? — A. Soon after that I did. 

Q. To make papers out after a man had been actually appointed; 
did you know that that was an irregular practice"? — A. It was not an 
irregular practice. 

Q. As a matter of law, as a postmaster discharging your duties you 
would say that that was a regular method? — A. I think not. I would 
like to explain. 

Q. You can answer my question. I say that this is irregular. — A. I 
say that my signature was not irregular.*^ If you will allow me to state 
I will show how the business was done. There was no impropriety in 
anything that I did. 

Q. The question which I was asking was, is it irregular ? — not whether 
it is culpable, or anything of that sort. — A. Shidy entered the certifica- 
tion at the wrong time. 

Q, And you signed it at the wrong time 1 — A. I did not sign it until 
after it was presented to me. 

Q. Was it irregular? — A. No, sir ; I signed it when it was brought to 
me. When the secretary brings that to me it is my duty to sign it. 

Q. Did you know that he acted irregularly ? — A. Not at that time; I 
know it now. 

Q. Did you know that it was irregular on his part to present the rec- 
ord to you for signature long after that appointment had been made? — 
A. He did it continuously. 

Q. That is not an answer. Did you know that to be irregular? — A. 
No, sir ; I did not. 

Q. But it was irregular? — A. It is the secretary's duty to know the 
law. 

' Q. I am not discussing what his duty is. I am discussing your un- 
derstanding of his duty. — A. My understanding of his duty would throw 
some light upon it, if you will allow me to make a candid explanation. 
Allow me then to state, as I understand the law, the secretary each 
month must report to the Commission. Now the practice of the secre- 
tary has been in my ofiice, and in other otfices also I think, before he 
njakes his report, at such time as he pleases, to bring to me the regis- 
ter for my name. He brings that, and lays it down before me, and 
points to the place where I am to sign, I look at the name and see if 
the man is in the service. It is simply a question as to the signature 
and the appointment. I signed that as a certitication that this man is 
appointed. Now I can not say that the postmaster should compare the 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 233 

dates of the appointment with the dates ot the record. That is not the 
practice. It is impracticable almost. 

Q. Did you understand then that it was his duty to report this within 
thirty days to the Commission ? — A. I understand it was his duty to 
report within thirty days. I do not keep track of his time. The post- 
master can not do it, as he has other matters to attend to. 

Q. You did not pretend to keep track of his reports ? — A. I have no 
jurisdiction over the civil-service reports, or his books, any more than 
you have. I could not see his books in any way. 

Q. That book you had legal control of as much as he had. — A. The 
register certification 1 

By the Chairman : 

Q. The certification book you have a right to examine at any time? — A. 
No, sir; I do not so understand it. I have no right to examine the records 
of the secretary, or interfere with the secretary. I do not propose that 
Major Webster's statement with regard to the rules shall be submitted 
without furnishing the rules themselves. You intimated that I had 
some control of the books. The rules prescribe that the secretary of the 
board shall safely keep, etc., all the books, papers, and records, and 
make reports. 

Mr. Lyman. Mr. Paul has a copy of the rules not in force when these 
transactions took jilace. 

The Witness. J think that Mr. Lyman's remark gives a false im- 
pression, and I think he has given false impressions repeatedly. That 
is my opinion. I think that when Mr. Lyman rises here and says that 
these were not the rules in force at that time, he is wrong. Then I 
wish to present both rules. I think his making that remark gives 
a wrong impression to this committee. 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. You said that the secretary was required to make a report once 
a month, and that he brought this book to you for signature. — A. You 
have not got that quite right. The practice of the secretary in making 
his monthly report was to come to my room and call for my official let- 
ter-book with the letter-press copies. From that book he could make a 
memorandum of the appointments made, and make his entries accord- 
ingly. Anything in that book was reliable. Then, when he has made 
the record of his monthly report, he brings that record with, perhaps, 
half a dozen names upon it of appointees during the preceding month. 
He would bring that record to me, and I would sign my name succeed- 
ing the names of the appointees. That shows the practice. I wish to 
have the committee understand that my signature is not made to the 
certifications by the secretary, but simply to the fact that that man 
was appointed. The records show the number of certifications, as Major 
Webster knows ; but the name of the appointee is on the face of the 
certification, and I put my signature opposite that of the name of the 
appointee ; and that is all I have to do with it. That I have always 
regarded as a proper thing, and I never examined it in my life. I never 
supposed I had a right to do anything, except to sign my name. 

Q. You had to examine it to make your selection. You could not 
make a selection without that"? — A. That has been explained to this 
committee. Shidy regarded his slip as a certification, and says him- 
self on one of these certificates, " I hereby certify." Shidy regarded 
this slip of paper as a certification, and it may be well for the informa- 
tion of this committee to show that it is so regarded in many of the 
principal post-offices of this country, to my personal knowledge. 



234 C1?IL SERVICE lNTESTiOATIO^f. 

Q. This certification was made to you two mouths aud a half aftet 
you had actually appointed and selected the man ? — A. I undoubtedly 
signed it February 18. As I understand it, Shidy's memorandum in 
the right hand column of that record, as furnished me by Johnson, is 
" appointed stamper December 8, 1887." My signature appears against 
Keaveny's name in each case on that record ; and I wish to say farther: 
Suppose that Shidy neglected to bring that record to me in the proper 
time, I believe my duty would be to sign it when he did bring it. 

Q. On the same date, February 18, the certifica1»on of three stampers 
and Michael Kremer, carrier, were made to you February 18, and you 
selected Kremer for the position of stamper of February 18, his appoint- 
ment being dated February 1, to take the place of Keaveny, who had 
then already been promoted to carrier ? — A. He was appointed stamper 
on the 18th of February ; the record of Dr. Shidy shows that. The 
entry of the date of his appointment on my books is February 1. Kow 
whether this is a misdate by Shidy of the certification, like many others, 
or whether the appointment is dated to take effect from February ] , ac- 
cording to the usual practice, I do not know. Whether it was a blunder 
or an improper date of the time, that the secretary should confess, I do 
not know. I guess it is a blunder of Shidy's. 

Q. Both these certifications were made on the same date, and signed 
on the same date. — A. There is no evidence of that. I have shown 
alreadj'^ that three of those were misdated. 

Q. You signed that in blank, did you ?— A. I do not know as to that. 

Q. As a business man, would you ever sign that in blank f — A. As a 
person observing the law ; and you are at fault if I am required to do 
anything more., 

Q. But you signed it in blank ? — A. I signed it as you have required 
me to sign it. 

Q. On the same date you selected this stamper for the position which 
he had been filling, and he having been promoted, and you also made a 
certification for the appointment of Kremer. — A. I think that is a mis- 
statement. 

Q. Did you on this same day, February 18, sign a certification for the 
appointment of Keaveny to the position of stamper December 8, he hav- 
ing already been promoted to the position of carrier on the same date ; 
and signed a certification for the appointment of Kremer to the position 
of stamper to fill the vacancy caused by the promotion of Keaveny 1 — A. 
The question is, whether I signed the book with reference to Keaveny 
and Kremer on the same date. I can not tell on what dates I sign books. 
I have no doubt, the case occurring, that the copy of the record is cor- 
rect. My impression about the matter of Keaveny is that Kremer suc- 
ceeded him as stamper. I think Keaveny was transferred to the duties 
of carrier on the suggestion of Shidy. That he transferred Keaveny to 
the duties of a carrier, the place for which he had been examined on 
the 1st of February. I think that is probably the case. He commenced 
his duties as carrier at that time, having been certainly selected as 
a stamper; and Kremer on the 18th of February succeeded him as 
stamper, these having been properly dated back to the Jst of February. 
The question of the promotion or transfer of Keaveny to the place of a 
carrier had been submitted to the board, and was considered by that 
board. 

Q. Now, on that same date, February 18, from certification ^o. 57, on 
which there were these two stampers and two clerks, you selected one 
of those clerks for, the position of stamper, and dated his appointment 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 235 

back to February 1. — ^^A. I know the fact that Eoiish was appointed 
stain i)er. 

Q. And you signed the certification, and dated it bacli for him ? — A. 
Undoubtedly I signed the record but dated no certification back, unless 
you refer to date of appointment instead of certification. I do not know- 
why I should not. I wish to give the facts in the case of Roush, He 
was regularly certified by the secretary of the board, and selected from 
the proper number of names at the time. If there is any impropriety 
about his appointment, I would like to know it now. 

Q. He was selected by you on February 18 from the certification No. 
57, being a man from the clerk's register, and yet you selected him for 
a stamper's place?— A. I do not mix him up with selections from the 
clerk's register. Where a carrier desired to accept a lower position in 
the absence of any vacancy above, his application was referred to Shidy 
in precisely the same manner that the law was supposed to permit, and 
as it is construed by the board of examiners, and by the Commission itself. 
I had nothing to do with certifications at all. If a man applied at his 
own request, the circular says he could be transferred from a higher to 
a lower service, at his own request, and when that request was made 
by any clerk or carrier, the secretary was supposed, and it certainly 
was his duty under this construction, to transfer the names to the other 
register, and certify this name in accordance with that principle. 

Q. I will ask you if you did not testify before me in September, 1888, 
that all those requests for transfer from higher to lower registers 
necessarily came to you, because all the parties came to you for appoint- 
ment, and for that reason all such requests came "? — A. Unquestionably 
every candidate for appointment habitually comes to the postmaster, 
and the postmaster's duty in such case is very clear, which is, if he 
wishes to have an applicant transferred to a lower register, to refer that 
ai)plicant to the secretary of the board of examiners, and this was done 
by me in every instance that I have any recollection of. 

Q. You knew every man that wanted to be transferred from clerks to 
stampers'? All such requests came to you f — A. In that way. A man 
comes into the office and wants an appointment. I say to him there is 
no vacancy. I want to explain that. I tell him that I can not appoint 
him, that there is no vacancy until his name comes lip in the regular 
way. He wants to know if there is a lower place that he can have 
temporarily, or something else, and it is the duty of the postmaster 
under those circumstances, and I have always regarded it so, to refer 
the applicant immediately to the secretary of the board for transfer at 
his own request under its construction. I think that explains my testi- 
mony sufficiently. 

Q. Did you state to me that where parties came to you and signified 
their willingness to accept a place in a lower grade, that you told the 
secretary to send his name to you next time with the other names? — 
A. 1 do not know but I may have said that. I think it is possible that 
I may have said to the secretary, " Give me the best qualified men 
that you can lawfully certify to." 1 think that would be my duty. 

Q. You directed tne secretary to certify these men? — A. Not individ- 
ual names, not persons. The i^rinciple of certification is all I have 
ever talked to the secretary about. 

Q. You said if you found a man who seemed to be qualified who was 
willing to take a place below his grade, you told the secretary to send 
that name to you? — A. Not that name except as to be embraced in the 
principle of a certification from a higher to a lower register. 

Q. You have explained about Roush, who was appointed from a clerk 



236 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

to a stamper's place from certification 57, and who had been certified 
you as a stamper, and you dated liis appointment back to February 
1. — A. I do not give these as absolute facts except from my theory of 
the facts. I wish that understood. 

Q. Under that {provision did you consider yourself at liberty to make 
selections from higher-grade registers without regard to there being eli- 
gibles on the lower-grade list of eligibles? — A. When a higher- grade 
eligible has expressed his willingness to accept a lower place, I have 
told him that under the ruling of the Commission he would insert the 
name of such person in such certification if he would take a lower xjosi- 
tion, being entitled to the privilege. I told the secretary that, but that 
does not refer to one individual. It referred to the principle. 

Q. We will come to the certification I^To. 58. This is the same date, 
February 18. There was in that certification to you three carriers and 
one clerk with a low grade. You selected that clerk on February 18, 
and dated his appointment February 15, did you not, three days prior? 
This is under the head of Eiley. — A. This is the case in which Shidy 
misdated the certification on February 18, and the appointment was 
made previous. February 15. The letter to the Department appointing 
Riley is dated February 15, and the certification was made previously on ' 
the slip of paper. The date, February 18, is unquestionably the date on 
which he was entered and was reported by the secretary. 

Q. The certification No. 59 is of a similar character, where there 
were certified Weber, from the carriers' list, for the position of stamper, 
and he was appointed by February 15, three days prior to that. — A. 
Weber declined, did he not ? Weber was certified to me as a stamper 
previous to February 15, and the appointment dated on the 15th, the 
date of the record of certification is on the 18th, in the same manner and 
in the same way as Riley. I would be glad if all these men could speak 
for themselves, as I can show by the affidavit of Weber that he was ap- 
pointed and certified on or before the 15th. There is no question about 
the facts. 

Q. Had he not been certified the full number of times prior to that 
without being selected?— A. That is not a question for me to deter- 
mine. 

Q. Wouldn't you know whether his name had been before you ? — A. 
I may have had his name before me previously, but how many times I 
can not know. 

Q. Uu the same date was certified to you a list of stampers from which 
you selected a Mr. Smith ?— A. Weber declined the place, and Mr. Smith 
was appointed from another certification in lieu of Weber. 

Q. We have all these five certifications on February 18, signed by 
you apparently on that date, from which you have made selections; 
"first of a carrier of a low grade, certified with three stampers to you and 
dated back, and you promoted him before a selection was made Febru- 
ary 1 ; then the appointment of another carrier, Cramer, to the position 
of stamper, dating his appointment back to February 1, to fill the va- 
cancy caused by the promotion of Keaveny ; then on the same date 
the appointment of Riley, a clerk, to the position of carrier, and dating 
him back only to February 15 ; then on the same date the selection of 
a carrier and promotion to the position of stamper, and dating him back 
to February 15. On the same date the selection of Smith, a carrier, for 
the position of stamper, dating and securing the appointment of four 
carriers to the position of stampers "? — A. Securing ? You mean result- 
ing. I do not wish you to use words implicating me. 

Q. Resulting in four ; four carriers having been appointed to theposi- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 237 

tion of stamper, the certification having put out of the way five stampers 
on the eligible list and at least one carrier? — A. I.do not know whether 
the stampers were on the list or not. 

Q. I want yOu to state what you know about these. Is it a fact that 
four carriers were appointed to the position of stampers; one clerk 
appointed to the position of stamper, and one to the position of car- 
rier?— A. I presume so. I cau not understand what the criticism is in 
the case. The board of examiners certifies to me the names of certain 
■ parties. Among these parties are the names of those who had been ex- 
amined for higher i)ositions, and they are certified to me as stampers. 
Under a construction of the board of examiners at that time, right or 
wrong, they felt that they had sufficient authority for it, and 1 knew 
nothing to the contrary under the letter of 1885. Under that letter 
every applicant who came to me for a position and expressed his will- 
ingness to take another position lower, as I understand, such could be 
properly transferred to the lower position. For instance, from carrier 
to stamper. Then the secretary as a rale, if he performs his duties, 
would certify the names of those belonging to the stamper list, includ- 
ing those examined for carriers, for the place of stamper ; and I consider 
that the service is very much improved by taking a man from a higher 
and putting him in a lower grade, but I can not understand what the 
criticism would be under such circumstances. 

Q. I will ask you if, when you saw these certifications, it did not look 
a little strange to you why all these persons were being certified out of 
the way so that they could have no other chance, and these names 
picked out ? — A. Do not say '' picked out. " 

Q. They were picked out from low down on the clerk's register where 
they were out of reach, and put in among these stampers and were 
always selected. Does it not look a little strange that these should be 
before you and you not notice it ? — A. I do not think it will be strange 
when you hear my answer. I think, practically, I know about as much 
as the Civil Service Commission in postoffice matters. I hope I do. 

Q. You think you know about as much as the Civil Service Commis- 
sion, you say "? — A. I know as much as the Commission ever stated to 
me. 1 will state my reply to Major Webster's question. As to the 
number that was certified and as to the class of persons that were trans- 
ferred from a higher grade to a lower: We have a vacancy, say, in the 
place of stamper in a post-office, and a person desires to be transferred — 
it does not make much difference, the lower the place the more this is 
true — and the friends of the person are gene'rally informed, through the 
person who is about to take some other place and the boys in the 
office, that a vacancy is about to occur. The result is an onslaught u[)on 
the postmaster of applications to till that place. I did not know where 
they came from. The postmaster is not bound to know. He does not 
make a distinction about their grade. In this way, when a vacancy 
occurs in an office at any time, under the old rule of the Commission 
there would be quite a number of applications for the place. The post- 
master does not know whether it is for one place or another. Quite a 
large number of applications are made, and that accounts for the num- 
ber that is on the carriers list. Nearly all of them, especially those low 
down on the list, are willing to accept any place. They are out of 
business, perhaps. That accounts for the number that flock in about 
that time. 

Mr. Andrew. Doyourememberthequestionyou were asked? Your 
answer seems to have no bearing on it. 

The Witness. Mr. Webster asked how I accounted for so many being 
certified from the upper list. 



238 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Mr. Webster. All to the lower list. 

The Witness. 1 will explain farther. I wish the committee to un- 
derstaud this. In the transfer from an upper to a lower list, the- fact 
was the secretary deemed the rank of a carrier, for instance, when he 
was transferred to the starai)er's place, as being much higher on the 
stampers' list than on the carriers' list. It was the opinion of Secretary 
Shidy to me, on which, on consultation with me, I have known him al- 
most invariably to act, so far as I have known anything about the 
matter, when a carrier went to Shidy to ask to be transferred to a lower 
list, the grade on the lower list was increased. 

Q. All of these requests for transfer lirst came to you ? — A. Not all 
the requests. 

Q. You said they necessarily came to you. — A. I say so now. I do 
not question the testimony. Naturally they came to me. I do not mean 
to say I sent for them. When a transfer was made to a lower list, it was 
the habit, I believe, of the secretary not to change actually the mark- 
ing, but transfer the name to the stampers' list and put him higher 
than those of the same mark standing as stampers, and I think that is 
natural. I think it would be impossible to pursue that system to trans- 
fer carriers or clerks to a lower grade without bringing them almost 
invariably to the top. These are only a few cases. I think that per- 
fectly answers Major Webster. 

Q. This is only an illustration. This is one of the cases to illustrate 
the manner in which it was done. You say there was a rush for these 
places'? — A. Always. 

Q. These were apparently made on different dates ; one December 8, 
one February 1, and another February 1 -, three more February 15, that 
are certified February 18. When did that rush occur? — A. That is 
begging the principle as to two or three appointments, but I wish to say 
to you it makes no difference. In every instance, without exception, 
without qualification, these transfers and certifications were made by 
the secretary of the board and without my instigation. 

Q. In regard to this certification from a higher to a lower grade place, 
who was lower upon the register, I want by a question here to show the 
effect and ask you to explain it. The records of your office show that 
Thomas F. Keaveny, who stood much lower than several other eligibles 
on the carriers' list, was appointed by you to the position of stamper 
December 8, 1887, and promoted by you to the position of carrier before 
he was certified to you, and was thus actually appointed to the i)Ositiou 
of carrier over those of higher average who were entitled to certification 
and appointment. I will ask you how it was that this appointment was 
made in violation of the rules ? — A. Before he was certified for carrier! 

Q. Before he was certified as a stamper he was appointed carrier by 
you February 1, 188S. 

The Ohaieman. Do you understand the question. 

The Witness. I do not understand his statement of facts, because 
they are not facts. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. The question is this : How did it happen that Keaveny was really 
promoted to the position of carrier, having a lower percentage, in prefer- 
ence to others who were on the eligible list having a higher percentage 
as carriers; whether it was done by having him appointed stamper and 
then promoting him, in that way evading the law "i — A. That is an in- 
timation of the Commission that there was some violation of the law. 

The Chairman. How do you explain it 1 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 239 

The Witness. The question is as to the promotion of Keaveuy from 
the place of stamper to that of carrier. The exact fact was, how long 
did Keaveny serve as a stamper ? 

Mr. Webster. He was appointed December 8, 1887, and promoted 
to carrier February 1, 1888 ? — A. He served as stamper from December 
8 to February 1. Keaveuy was a very competent man, and I can give 
the reason for his promotion. I repel the idea that there is any impro- 
l>riety in the matter. He served from December 8 to February 1, as I 
understand it, as a stamper. He is a man weighing 250 pounds. This 
fact has a bearing on the motive for his promotion. He then applied 
for promotion to the place of a carrier, and I doubted whether that could 
be done under the rule. I submitted the question formally to the board 
of examiners so that they might take that question up and determine 
it. I looked at the rules and could not determine whether it was proper 
or not. The board took the Cj^uestion under consideration and examined 
the rules for themselves. You understand that I always regarded the 
board as essentially the Commission in the office. 

On a certain occasion Secretary Shidy brought to my room, after a 
full and rather prolix consideration of the whole matter, a book of rules, 
which I intended to have brought with me, but by a mistake brought 
the wrong one. He said he thought it to be strictly proper, and he 
gave me that opinion as the opinion of the board. Under that opinion 
I consented to it, but had very much doubt whether it was author- 
ized. I thought it was rather an anomalous case, but that perhaps 
the Commission had made a lapse there in certain cases. They did not 
make a lapse for the reason that the instructions of 1885 had been 
changed, as you know. With the instructions of the letter of 1885, a 
person could go from a clerk's or a carrier's list to a stamper's, and then, 
under the then existing rules, the board claimed that he could be pro- 
moted to a different place from that for which he was originally exam- 
ined. Now I was in doubt about that. I think it is proper to allow me 
to state, if the committee have no objection, that the record of that pro- 
ceeding of the board of examiners was not in existence in any com- 
plete shape. The action of the board — I do not know whether it was 
the action of the board or one of the board — but I think it is referred 
to in an affidavit by Fahsel, one of the members of the board, which 
might be read by the committee. I wish to show why the record can 
not be produced showing the action in that case as to the promotion. 
Mr. Fahsel has stated to me in explanation of that, that a resolution 
offered by Shidy himself construing the case, or the principle covering 
the case, was adopted unanimously by the board, but is not to be found 
in the records at all. Those really are the facts as to the promotion. 

Q. You mean to say that Shidy forced upon you those appointments, 
notwithstanding that you had a knowledge of all those requests I— A. 
I do not see why you should not be candid. 

Q. Notwithstanding that the requests for certifications for lower 
places and requests for appointment by applicants were all made direct 
to you, Mr. Shidy forced upon you the appointment of all these people 
from the clerks' register, to the lower stamper register, and from the 
clerks' to the carriers' register, in spite of yourself, and prevented vou 
from getting any man from the proper register, and by his manipula- 
tions alone you were forced to take these men from the higher register ? 
You had nothing to do with the matter ?— A. Let me state it in my own 
language. I have not said in any testimony that I have given that 
applications were made to me by these men for transfer. I was igno- 
rant of applications and transfers as far as I practically could be. I 



240 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

would tell tboin wlieii they wanted a transfer to go to the secretary. 
That was my duty plainly. If I wished to make an appointment as 
stamper, 1 did not care who was appointed as stamper. I knew none 
of these men personally. 

By the Chairman : 
Q. When you appointed this man Keaveny as a stamper, when you 
signed that certification appointing him as stamper, did you haveat^he 
time of it in you mind that yon would make a letter carrier of him and 
wanted him for that purpose? — A. JS^o, sir; I had in my mind this, 
which 1 always had in my mind, that certifications from a higher to the 
lower list were an advantage to the service. 

Q. This, man Keaveny had applied for a place as carrier "? — A. Yes, 
sir ; and had been examined. 

Q. Did you know him personally °? — A. 1 never saw the man before, 
never in mv life. I never saw any of these men and 1 do not ^think 
I would know Keaveny. I do not think I would know these m*en in 
the street to-day. I would not recognize them. I never allowed my- 
self to know a man in connection with any possibility of his appoint- 
ment. 

By Mr. Boatnee : 

Q. Is not this the same man we were asking you about this morning 
who was certified to in December on a slip, and appointed by you on 
one of those certifications which was not entered, and that you pro- 
moted him on the 1st of February, and after the promotion the book 
was brought to you and you signed that as an original appointment ! — 
A. It is the same case. 

Q. Was it the rule in your office that applicants for promotion had 
to be re-examined, or was one who was already in the service subject 
to promotion without re-examieaation and re-certification ? — A. There is 
a rule for promotion without re-examination. 

Q. On the 1st of February, if this man had been duly certified in 
December and appointed in December, would he have been subject to 
promotion on his grade under the rule, without re-examination 1 — A. 
The question of re-examination is not involved. 

Q. The gentleman asked you this question, how it happened that a 
man on the carriers' list was reduced to the stampers' list and ap- 
pointed as a stamper ; and, having been appointed as a stamper, was 
promoted to the carriers' list ?— A, That was a case of m.isapprehension. 
And as to whether such a system would have interferred with the 
rights of those on the carriers' list, that was the question that was 
submitted to the board. 

Q. At the time you appointed this man Keaveny, had he been certi- 
fied to you? — A. Yes, sir; when he was appointed. 

Q. Then you had appointed him as a stamper? — A. As a stamper. 

Q. Was there anything in the law or the rules which would i)revent 
you from doing that legally' 1-^A. I do not know. My testimony is this„ 
that Keaveny was regularly certified and selected on his first appoint- 
ment to the position of stamper. The question of promotion, which 
was a new question to me, was submitted to the board of examiners 
and the opinion given that he could be appointed to the position for 
which he was originally examined. That is the explanation. 

By the Chairman : 
Q. The official records show a wrong date. — A. The official records 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 241 

show a wroDg date; there are thirty-five wrong dates on that record of 
one hundred and four. 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. You signed this whole group at one time "? — A. I do not concede 
that. 

Q. The record was made up February IS?— A. I have no doubt he 
gave me that report in that way. I have no recollection of signing a 
batch in that way; but I do not remember. I would like to have you 
point me to the rule which relates to promotions of appointees to the 
places for which they are originally examined. 

Q. There is no rule which would prevent that, except where there 
was a detriment to others on the list of eligibles in those cases. — A. 
Then you mean to say there was no rule ? 

Q, Where it was to the detriment of others. — A. There are no such 
words in the rule. 

Q. There is not a rule 1 — A. I think there is a rule. I do not propose 
to be misled until I know. I have been misrepresented about as many 
times as I care to be. The provision refers to appointment and promo- 
tion under certain circumstances, uniil special certification may be 
made. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Suppose there were ten men on the eligible list for letter-carriers 
and the postmaster desired to appoint a j)articulaT man as a letter- 
carrier, and the i)arty he desired to appoint was found to be ninth on 
the list. Under the rule, he could not appoint him, because others of 
a higher percentage would be first certified, would they not?— A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. If you take a lower grade, and appoint a man as a stamper, and 
afterwards promote him, would not that be a violation of the law, be- 
ing a detriment to those that passed a superior examination ? — A. That 
would really be a detriment. 1 should object to it most positively. 
But in those cases referred to, you must understand that I got the 
opinion of the board a« to the transfer from the upper to the lower 
grade. Under present circumstances, it could not be made at all. But 
this was done under instructions of the Commission in 1885, which was 
the prevailing rule at our office until instructions were given to the con- 
trary. That could not be done now. 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. You said, I believe, that you had no knowledge of the state of 
the register at the time these appointments were made. You did not 
know anything about them, and that Shidy made certifications to 
yon, and you did not know how they came, or what the state of the 
register was at the time f — A. That I so stated, and 1 never knew any- 
thing of the state of the register. There was an absence of names 
for stamiiers. 

Q. You did not know what was the state of the register? — A. No, 
sir; I gave that no consideration. I never influenced the rank of can- 
didates in any way whatever. 

Q. Do you remember Charles J. Cumming I — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. His name was at the head of this certification No. 54, which was 
void, and at the head of 58, 59, and 60. You remembered the man and 
the correspondence 1 — A. Yes, sir; in a 'general way. 

Q. In the correspondence that you had with the Department when 
you were eudeavoriiig to get his appointment made, you stated to the 
3117 16 



242 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



Commission that Cnmming's iiame stood at the head of the list of car- 
rier eligibles. This is in the correspondence after the appointment. If 
you did not know anything about the state of the register, how were 
you able to state that he stood at the head of the list? — A. Mr. Gum- 
ming knew his own rank, and probably gave it to me. I think he was 
informed by iShidy of his rank. It was commonly known in the whole 
office. 

Q. Then you did know the state of the register ? — A. iSTot from the 
register. I did not know the state of the register. I simply knew of 
this remarkable case in which Gumming stood high. That is about all 
I knew of it. 

Q. You said he stood at the head. — A. I may have known that fact 
at the time. 

Q. What did you make your statement on ? — A. On common noto- 
riety in the office. 

Q. Simply on hearsay ? — A. I think on his own statement. I think 
Shidy spoke of it, that he stood at the head. 

Q. In this letter of May 30, you stated at the time that Gumming's 
name was certified to you from the carriers' register when the stamper 
register was exhausted 5 how did you know ? — A. I got my information 
from Shidy. He made a very full statement to me. I think it was very 
proper for him to give me that information. 

Q. In your letter of May 30, 1888, in which you speak of the certifi- 
cation of Gumming, notwithstanding that he had twice declined to 
accept the position of stamper, you say the list of stampers was nearly 
exhausted, and Gumming's name was merely used to make the certifi- 
cation as to number complete. — A. That is a matter for Shidy to explain. 

Q. This is your letter ; this letter you wrote officially to the office. — 
A. Shidy did use his name, whether rightly or not I do not know, and 
I do not care. 

Q. How did you know it? — A. From Shidy; he made that repre- 
sentation in favor of Gumming. He said injustice had been done him. 
He had declined a specific appointment as you remember, which was 
offered to him on a regular certification, and then Shidy informed me 
that he had carried him on his list of eligibles until he had been certi- 
fied three times without his knowledge. I think it was a j^eculiar 
proceeding and Shidy was responsible for it, and I did not approve of 
it, to the best of my recollection. Then Gumming came and asked for 
an appointment, and Dr. Shidy informed him, and he also informed 
me, that his rights had expired, or terminated, and I thought it was a 
hard case. I thought he should have a restoration under those circum- 
stances. 

Q. Were these certifications ever modified by Shidy at any time ^^ — 
A. No, sir ; not to my recollection. I do not recollect that certifications 
were ever modified. 

Q. Let me read a little piece of your testimony in which you say, "in 

, one or two cases the secretary modified the certifications to accord with 

, the rule ?" — A. I do not know that that is not correct. I did not recol- 

, lect about that. Gertifications have never been modified by me, or by 

njy dictation in any way. There were frequent conversations in regard 

, to certifications, and frequently Dr. Shidy would ask me as to whether 

, I thought it proper, and I did not answer as a rule, but referred the 

question to the whole board, and asked him to do that also. I have 

abundance of affidavits covering all these points from Fahsel, Johnsoij, 

and other parties affected. I should be glad, Mr. Ghairman, if you 

would get their testimony. I should like that every man concerned in 

.the Milwaukee post-office should .be. examined, as. a witness. There Js 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 243 

not one who would not confirm ray testimony. 1 think it ou!?ht to be 
done in a case where it depends upon the veracity of iShidy and myself. 
I think other witnesses ought to be made to corroborate one or the 
other. 

Q. I, have confined myself to your own official records, without one 
intimation as to what Shidy has said or done. In the questions I have 
asked, I have not taken anything from what Shidy has said"? — A. 
Sometimes Shidy was Dr. Jekyll, and sometimes Mr. Hyde; 1 did not 
know him as both. 

Q. In regard to that Gumming matter in a letter from the Com- 
mission to you about Gumming, signed by Mr. Oberly, you were in- 
formed that the only circumstances which would justify his certifica- 
tion to the place of stamper then would be the depletion of the stamj^ers' 
register below the number required for a single certification. In reply 
to this, in your letter dated June 9, 1888, you said such was precisely 
the fact in the case of Gumming, and the depletion of the stampers' list 
could not well have been foreseen. Please explain, in view of the fact 
that there were five names yet on the stampers' register with Gum- 
ming"? — A. Yon say there were five names on the register? 

Q. There were five on the eligible register at the date on which he 
was reported. — A. What is the date of my letter ? 

Q. The letter to you was in regard to the certification of Gumming 
as stamper, though he had been certified for stamper, and had lost his 
chance by being certified and stating to you that he had no right to be 
so certified. Please explain, in view of these facts, why these were 
used for stuffing for certifications ? — A. My letter was a reply to you to 
show how it happened to be done, explaining how his name happened 
to be used. That was precisely the situation at that time. 

Q. You say, in answer, that such was the fact in the case of Gum- 
ming ; the depletion of the stamper list could not have been foreseen ? — 
A. That letter was in behalf of Gumming, on the suggestion of Shidy. 
I supposed at the time that was the exact fact. I know very well, and 
have a distinct recollection as to the circumstances, that I was informed 
that the stamper eligible list was deficient. I am positive of that; and 
I feel positive now that Shidy told me that that was the fact. You 
understand the matter at that time was changed. If you will state 
the five persons perhaps I can recollect. 

Q. I can give them to you. Bruno Losh, average 95, was a stamper; 
James F. Keen an, Patrick J. McGormick, Albert Klotz, jr.,and Frank 
L. Kocejia. Those were all upon the eligible register and were before 
you.— A. The information was given at the same time, and it may have 
been that the number was actually less than the number required; but 
I am positively sure that that was the information given me by the 
officer in charge of the register, and there may have been some misap- 
prehension about it. I have a positive recollection of these men re- 
maining on that list, although they were unavailable utterly from pre- 
vious records in my oiSce. One of them — I would not like to make a 
public charge — but one of them to my knowledge had run away while 
in the place of messenger, robbing the other people, etc., and had per- 
formed acts which were inconsistent with his appointment under any 
circumstances. The other two were just such cases. That would leave 
but three. The fact was understood by me from information furnished 
me, and it was precisely as I gave it to you. 

Q. But you had had them before you ; you could not have trusted 
to anybody's statement to you. Mr. Gumming's name had appeared 
upon these certifications with other people. When you had these certifi- 
cations you had these names along with Mr. Gumming's. You did not 
need Mr. Shidy's statement to you. You had the names here with you 
at the time vou were talking about ? — A. Whv ? 



244 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



Q. All these certifications bore these names. — A. I never took note 
of them, except in making my selection. My letter is written to i)rove 
that fact. I make a selection without looking to see whose name is on 
there. 

Q. You did not then take notice of it f — A. 'So, sir ; I could not do 
it in any way at all. I believe I am not in the habit of telling un- 
truths on matters of that kind, especially in writing. 

Q. On May 6, 1887, a certification was made to fill the position of 
carrier, and you received the names of two carriers and one clerk, 
Alexander H. Wigman, the latter having failed in an examination. 
You selected Wigman first, and afterwards promoted him as an auxil- 
iary carrier in August, 1887. — A. I do not know about the matter to 
which you refer; but I will say I have affidavits covering all the cases 
you have referred to. You do not seem to have the affidavits produced. 
I wish to say to the committee that I have affidavits here of the other 
two members of the board of examiners, and of other persons knowing 
all the facts sworn to, covering practically every individual and the par- 
ticular charges of the United States Civil Service Commission, and I 
think it is proper for me to ask you to accept them in evidence. They 
are letter-press copies of the affidavits sent to the President of the 
United States. I think that they would explain to the Commission 
iitself, if they cared to examine them, just the charges the Commission 
has made. It is testimony entirely of disinterested persons in every 
case. 

AFTER RECESS. 

GEORGE H. PAUL— Recalled. 

Mr. Paul, recalled and examined. 
By Mr. Webster : 

Q. Did you explain the appointment of Mr. Benjamin F.Langiand to 
the position of stamper? He was appointed to it July 1, 1887, without 
a certification. — A. Again, Mr. Webster, I think you continually do 
me injustice by saying he was appointed such and such a date without 
certification. If you would state what the fact is,he was appointed, and, 
according to the registry of certification, without certification, it would 
probably be i)recisely according to the facts. 

Q. There is no registry of certification ; it is the certification itself. — 
A. Well, I mean the original certification. 

Q, There is no original certification for his appointment. — A. But 
when your state to this committee here and to the public in your reports 
through the Associated Press, that such a thing did occur absolutely 
without certification it may not be true, as in this case, and I object 
to the language which you use under such circumstances. I do not 
want any false impressions to go out. I am very glad of anything which 
will bring out the facts in the case, and I rely upon that only. 

By the Chairman : 
Q. Was the man certified 1 — A. The man was certified. 
Q. Does it appear by the record that he was '?— A. I understand it 
does not; that no record of it was ever made by the secretary. 
By Mr. Webster : 
Q. Then, so far as the Commission is concerned, they hM no knowl- 
edge that the man had been certified?— A. They had no knowledge 
from the record that he had been certified ; but tlie truth is, the exact 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 245 

truth is, it was one of the most responsible positions in my department, 
on account of the character of the man. He was certitied regularly, 
regularly examined, from the list, and I think the matter could be 
determined by an examination of the list showing that he would have 
been the proper appointee at the time. 

Q. He could not have been api^ointed at the time when you appointed 
him. — A. He may have been appointed- 

Q. ^o; because he had been certified out before. If you remember 
about his case the records show that he was certified to you four times 
from the carriers' register for the position of carrier, the last certifica- 
tion being dated May 6, 18S7. He was not selected by you from any 
one of these certifications. — A. What number was that? 

Q. Forty-one, I think, or 44, is the certification on which his name 
appeared J he had four certifications, one more than he was entitled to, 
which was an error of the secretary, as he explained to me on the fourth 
certification. — A. Certified four times. 

Q. By mistake he was certified four times ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you did not take him; and two months later, after other cer- 
tificates had been made, did you not appoint him, not to the place to 
which he had previously been certified, that is to a carrier's place, but 
to a place for which he had not passed an examination, and for which 
he was certified? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. According to the certification books he was never certified? — A. 
Well, I know that. That is in the usual form. He was certified to me 
and appointed from a certification. That much I do know. 

Q. Well, where is his certification of any kind ? — A. I do not know. 
There is undoubtedly no record of it. I find other cases of the same 
sort. 

Q. Where is the certification that you had ? There should be one 
somewhere ? — A. It should be in the record. 

Q. How, then, are you in possession of these scrap certificates that 
you testified here to-day about ? — A. Because they were not always 
taken back to his desk. My practice in business is to file every paper, 
particularly whenever the paper relates to a matter of business. If I 
have only one name especially I would bring this in and get back per- 
haps a memorandum or record — what we call a record — and leave the 
paper with him ; then I would call for it again. I remember very well 
that one or two of these laid in my drawer — in the drawer of my desk 
at my left hand, as I think I showed you. I think I showed you some 
that remained there that he had not taken away. I do not know that 
there is any obligation upon his part to take that certification away, 
but I think it would be the proper method of business. 

Q. You can not point to any certification now in regard to this man's 
appointment? — A, I do not know what you mean by " point." I know 
the fact that he was certified and selected. 

The Chairman. You mean any regular certification. 
By Mr. Webster: 

Q. There is no regular certification. There is nothing in existence 
to show that he was ever certified to you. — A. I examined that with 
reference to it. You say the date is what ? 

Q. He was appointed by you July 1, 1887. — A. Yes ; 1887. 

Q. Well, do you not know of the existence of any certification cover- 
ing his appointment? — A. I know that there was a certification ; but 
as to its preservation or record I do not know. I know of some other 
similar cases — one at least. 



246 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Do you remember about your explanation to me in regard to that 
appointment 1 — A. No, sir ; I do not. Perhaps that might refresh my 
recollection. 

Q. Did you not suggest to me that you thought Mr. Langland had 
been selected from one of those four prior certifications by you at a 
later date, but that in July you took up that old certification and 
selected his name from it? — A. I do not remember. 

Q. You stated to me at the time you thought you had selected him 
from certification No. 44 — the last time his name appeared before you ; 
you thought you had recalled that certification and had selected his 
name from it. I wish you would explain if that was not the case, and 
why there was no signature attached to that selection. — A. Forty -four; 
now, lean not tell you that case. That was Shidy's, not mine. 

Q. If that were the case the certification ought certainly then to have 
been made up in the certification book, so that there could be no need 
for any scrap papers about that. It was dated May 6, 1887, according 
to the book. You had selected this man, Alexander H. Wigman, who 
failed to pass the examination at all, and then you say you took from 
this certification — that you think you took from this certification — later 
on, the 1st of July of that year, there having been a number of other 
certifications, that you called for that boot and took Langiand's name 
for stamper. You would not have needed any scrap paper lor that. It 
was in the book. Then how can you account for your not signing for 
it? — A. I will say generally as to signing, I signed for the selections as 
they were presented to me by the secretary, as 1 explained in the fore- 
noon. If a man had been selected, certified, appointed, and reported to 
the department and the book had never been presented to me, I do not 
think I should be aware of the fact that he had not been signed for. I 
had no means of knowing 

Q. Well, if that were the case you would not have selected him from 
any scrap-paper certification ? — A. Why not ? 

Q. He was in the book by an old certification entered in May, 1887, 
and, if you had drawn his name from that, what necess.ity was there for 
any scrap-paper certification? — A. I do not know why there should not 
be a scrap-paper certification the same as in other cases. Will you be 
kind enough to read my testimony ? 

Q. Yes ; I have it here and will read it in a moment : 

The postmaster addressed the secretary of the board. As to the case of Laugland, 
previously referred to in this testimony, the record does not appear to show his 
selection. I have positive recollection that he was selected from a regular certifica- 
tion in the manner snch certiiicates were usually inade. My impression is that his 
certification, 44 — Wigman was first selected for the place of carrier, and in the 
meantime Langland had consented to take the place of stamper, and that the cer- 
tification was then recalled and Langland selected as the second man from that 
certification. My further impression is that the failure to enter on the record of cer- 
tification the selection of Langland arises from the fact that the second selection from 
the same certification was not the rule ia this office, and that in making up the rec- 
ord, the secretary, having received my signature to the'iirst selection of that certifi- 
cation, deemed the record satisfied and omitted to enter the second selection of Lang- 
land, and that 1, when such record was made, would have passed over the entry iu 
the same manner and for the same reasons in giving my signature. 

And you asked Shidy if that might not have been the way the error 
occurred? — A. He says that might have been the way the error oc- 
curred. That is all I know about it. I only know that he was selected 
from a regular certification. I forget the circumstances. 

Q. Would you have selected a stamijer from a carrier's certification 



CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. ^47 

certified to you for a carrier f — A. ISTo, sir ; I would not. I do not 
think 

Q. Well, but if you did make the selection, why you made it from a 
certification for a carrier and appointed him to a stamper's place, did 
you not? — A. No, sir; I do not remember any such case. 

Q. Did you not appoint him to a stampers place ? — A. Who ? 

Q. Mr. Langland? — A. Yes, sir; I think so but I will not be certain. 

Q. And the selection was made from certification 44"? The selection 
was made from a carrier's certification "? — A. I do not know that I did 
that. I do not think that I did. do so. I do not think it was in that way. 

Q. But that is the statement you made to me in questioning Mr. 
Shidy. — A. Did I say he was selected as a carrier ? 

Q. You said that you first selected Mr. Wigman, and afterwards re- 
called that and took'Mr. Langland. Whether that was not the way ? — 
— A. That might have been the way of it. 

Q. He says you did that, and that the board concurred. — A. Let me 
see. As the case now 

Q. Not just now — just simply the appointment of Langland without 
certification so far as the records of your office go. — A. I am not aware 
that I ever used the word "recall." there. Langland came back to me, 
which is probably the meaning of it. 

Q. Would you, in your opinion, have the right to recall the certifica- 
tion ? — A. No, sir ; I never did to my knowledge. If Langland was se- 
lected from a carrier's certification it would have been what I call gross 
misconduct. 

Q. But you state in here in substance that you think we concurred 
by recalling that certification and took the name off of it. — A. There 
is some construction to be placed on that language. It is barely pos- 
sible that Langland was certified as a carrier, and subsequently he 
was selected and certified as a stamper. 

Q. That is not the case here at all. You are trying to get away from 
the statement as to the effect of this certification 44, which was recalled 
and Langland's name taken off of it, and you go on to explain that it 
was not the custom at your office to do that. — A. No, sir, it was not. I 
know 

Q. And that is the way in which it was done ? — A. The recall of him 
by himself or the secretarj^ ? 

Q. By you. — A. I think there is a misapprehension about that recall 
by the secretary. It probably means 

Q. No ; the secretary would not recall it. It is your recall. — A. He 
may have made a certification and recalled it. He might have done 
that for correction or something of that kind. 

Q. No, sir ; you had made your selection already from this certifica- 
tion.-— A. I only know this, that I never knowingly selected a stamper 
from a carrier's certification in my life. It would be simply 

Q. Well, this testimony is here. I wish you to explain that statement. 

It says A. He may have been coming back to me if you use the 

word " recall " iu that sense. It will possibly explain it, but I can not 
remember that. 

Q. You appointed Langland to the position of stamper? — A. I am 
not certain about that. Perhaps the official record shows that. 

Q. Have you the list ? 

By the Chairman : 
Q. Does it not show here on your list that you appointed him as 
stamper ? — A. No, sir. 



248 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. What does it show ? — A. I thiak Mr. Lang^land's name did not 
appear on the list at all ; I think not. I do not think his name ap- 
jjears here at all. 

Q. Was he appointed to any position in yonr post-ofSce? — A. Mr. 
Langland, as I stated in my original testimony, was certified to me and 
appointed to a position. I have no recollection of his ever having been 
a stamper, although he might have been. Possibly he was in the lower 
department of the office. I do not think his name appears on the list 
at all. Does he appear on the record of certification ? 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. He is on the record of certification. He is not on any certifica- 
tion except his certification which you had passed by A. He ap- 
pears on no record, as I understand it, of certification, as a selection 
from any certification. 

Q. No; there is no certification upon his selection. — A. The fact of 
his selection I remember distinctly, the certification to me. 

Q. WeM, but do not pass this. Here are four of them back here. 
He was four times certified to you back there. Do you recollect any 
other certifications than these four in May, or preceding May 6. I 
think they were in May. They were all in May — May 6 ? — A. How 
many did you say ? 

Q. The four. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, on this one from which the selection was said to have been 
made there were Langland, Bauch,and Byrne, carriers, and Wigman, 
a clerk, all certified for carriers' places, and you selected Wigman?— A. 
Yes, sir. My impression is that Wigman was examined for a clerkship. 
His percentage was certified by Shidy to be higher than the others. 

Q. Yes ; he failed to pass, and July 1, 1887 (I have the report here 
of the appointments in your office), July 1, 1887 — the date of this was 
August 10. He was appointed in the place of Mr. Wines ? — A. Stamper 
in the mailing division. What date? 

Q. July 1, 1887. — A. He was certified and selected ; there is no ques- 
tion about the fact at all. 

Q. You know of no certification to show that ? — A. I know of no 
record of certification ; no, sir. 

Q. That is the original certification that you call the scrap papers? — 
A. Those were never regularly preserved. 

Q. Nothing that you can produce now to show that fact? — A. Noth- 
ing that I could under any circumstances. Nothing that I could pro- 
duce in here about his appointment. It is not my business to preserve 
them. 

Q. Do you remember that Charles J. Gumming was appointed to the 
position of stamper May 1, 1888 ? Can you tell whether he was certified 
to you and selected from a regular certification ? — A, Yes, sir ; I think 
I can. 

The Chairman. What is the name ? 

Mr. Webs-ter. Charles J. Cumming, who was alluded to in another 
case. — A. He was the man who was restored by the Commission to the 
list. 

Q. I can give you something of the history of that case if that is what 
you are looking for there. I will give that if you desire it, or will quote 
your statement. We have already had him before us here on four cer- 
tifications — one, No. 54, void — the one that is spoken of as marked 
" void" — one. No. 58, for carrier; one, No. 59, for stamper, and one No. 
60, for stamper ; four certifications that have been made. That was on 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 249 

February 18 on the certification book. You appointed him May 1, 18S8. — 
A. Whom are you talking about ? 

Q. Gumming — to the position of stamper. — A. Do you mean that the 
record says so "? 

Q. Yes, sir. — A. Oh, well 

Q. Then you appointed him May 1, 1888 ! — A. 1888 — excuse me just 
a moment. You say that he was appointed on such a date. You have 
already said that twice, I believe, now. 

The Chairman. He says the record shows all that? — A. Yes, sir. 
What is the number "? 

Mr. Webster. The number of certification ? — A. On which his name 
appears ? 

Q. The number of his old certification — not the one from which you 
made his selection ; you did not select him from any one. They were 
54, 58, 59, and 60.— A. Yes, sir. On the receipt of the order of the 
Commissioner restoring him to the list from the register of eligibles. 
(After a pause.) I was about to give that testimony, Mr. Chair- 
man. The secretary brought me the name of Mr. Cumming, as per 
the orden as he understood it, of the Commission as the person who 
was to T^e restored to the right of certification, as having been omitted. 
That was the action of the secretary. But Mr. Cumming was never 
appointed by me to any classified position in the world, and never held 
one. That is a fact. 

Q. IS'ever appointed to any classified position 1 — A. To any classified 
position at all. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Well, what position did he hold ? — A. He held an exempted posi- 
tion — an excepted position. He was appointed to one of the excepted 
positions — excepted by the Department; the jiosition of custody of 
stamps — for the sale of stamps in the department. I have his affida- 
vit here to that effect. " Charles J. Cumming " 

The Chairman. He says his affidavit is there to the effect that he 
never was appointed to any position except the position of stamp- 
seller. — A. (Reading.) "After 1 had been certified three times I was re- 
stored to the list and made eligible for appointment by order of the 
Commission, but was never appointed to a civil service or a classified 
position before or after or since said order, as the place I tilled was de- 
clared exempt." That is the fact about it. 
By Mr. Webster : 

Q. Well, you appointed him on May 1, 1887, did you not ? — A. He 
said himself 

Q. May 1, 1888, I mean.— A. (Evading) : 

State op Wisconsin, Milwaukee County : 

Charles J. Cumming, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has read a sup- 
plementary report of the Civil-Service Commission iu vrhich it is stated that after a 
man has been certified three times and was not chosen and therefore was not eligible, 
the postmaster truly proceeded to appoint him ; and said Cumming further deposes 
and says that if this statement refers to him, as he believes, from the circumstances, 
it wholly explained by the fact that after I had been certified three times I was re- 
stored to the list and made eligible for appointment by order of the Commission, but 
was never appointed to a civil-service or a classified position before or after or since 
said order, as the place I filled was declared exempt. 

Charles J. Cumming. 

Q. Well, you appointed him May 1, 1888. Did you not recommend 
or sign that as the date of his appointment ? — A. The particular date I 
can not state. 



250 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Well, there is that list you brought with you — this list ? — A. What 
is the number of the certification ? 

Q. Well, there was no certification for that, unless it was of a very 
late date 1 — A. Gumming appears here somewhere, does he not? This 
is the secretary's record. The certification shows that he was certified 
September 7. He was appointed to an excepted place, I think, May I. 

Q. To an excepted place. What was the place he was appointed to, 
then ? — A. Custody of the stamps. 

Q. What was his grade — what was the name of the place to which he 
was appointed "? — A. Appointed a clerk. 

Q. Stamper ? — A. No, sir. 

The Chairman. A clerk. 

Mr. Webster. But he never served in that way ? — A. I think 

Mr. Webster. This report was made August 10, 1888, and shows 
that Charles J. Cumming was appointed stamper May 1, 1888, and was 
certified three times without having his eligibility restored by the Com- 
mission. JSI"ow, that was an appointment as stamper at that time t 

The Chairman. Well, but he says he was never apijointed to that 
position. 

Mr. Webster. I want to know another thing [holding a paper 
in his handj. 

Mr. Stone. What is that ? 

Mr, Webster. That is the report made by the secretary of the 
board "1 — A. I will say further, and perhaps throw a little more light 
on it 

The Chairman. Just one moment ; answer this question so that the 
committee will understand it. Is this report made to the Civil Service 
Commission correct in the statement that Cumming was appointed on 
May 1 ; eighteen hundred and eighty what — what year is it ? 

Mr. Webster. May 1 , 1888. 
By the Chairman : 

Q. May 1, 1888 ; to the position of stamper. Now, one moment. 
Answer that; you stated here a few moments ago that he never held a 
position under the civil-service rules, but he was appointed. Now, was 
he appointed as a stamper or not ? If he was not appointed as a stamper, 
and this report says he was, is not the report incorrect in so far as it 
relates to that item ? — A. Yes, sir; if you will allow me state my recol- 
lection of it I think you will understand my testimony. I think when 
his name was certified as a stamper he was appointed, that is, nominally, 
and that he might have declined. He never served as stamper. That 
is my recollection of it. I think he declined the position very promptly. 

Q. I understood you to say A. It was my duty to make a selec- 
tion, you understand. 

Q. Yes; I understand. — A. And nominally he was appointed; but not 
actually, because he declined without going into the service. 

Q. Well, I understand you ; the reason I asked you that question 
was because I understood you a few moments ago to say that he was 
never appointed to the position A. Never held the position. 

The Chairman. Well, I understand you. 
By Mr. Webster : 

Q. You say he was apiwinted to the position of stamper, but never 
performed the duty ? — A. Never performed any duties of stamper, I am 
very positive. I know that he declined. 

Q. In your examination before me, I asked you questions in regard 
to Cumming. "• In the report of the secretary it appears that Charles 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION". 251 

J. Gumming was appointe<i May the Ist, 1888, without certification. 
He had been certified three times without selection. His eligibility 
was restored by the Commission June 16, 1888. How was he appointed 
without certification on the date mentioned, June 16 ?" You say " the 
question of Mr. Cumming's appointment was referred to the Commis- 
sion. The letter of the Commission was construed to cover the original 
appointment of May 1, 1888, and he was restored to his position in the 
office, his service having been suspended in the meantime, and the 
record should be duly corrected as to his eligibility, in accordance with 
the decision of the Commission, in case his eligibility is deemed not to 
date back to his original appointment." All that is underlined there 
and corrected as your correction. — A. What is the question about 1 

Q. The question that I have just read. — A. I do not quite understand 
what it is. 

Q. Well, I ask you to explain about how Charles J. Cumming was 
appointed in your office to the position of stamper. May 1, 1888 f — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. There being nowhere in existence any certification for that ap- 
pointment "?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That can be found 1 — A. Yes, sir. Mr. Cumming was duly certi- 
fied and selected for stamper and declined. 

Q. And declined, but was duly certified ? 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Let me ask that question. You state now, Mr. Paul, that Mr. 
Cumming never accepted any appointment or performed any service 
as stamper ? — A. Kot to my recollection. I am very positive he never 
did. I think the appointment remained suspended until the instruction 
of the Commission was received ; at one time or another, but the pre- 
cise date I can not recall. 

Q. Your statement a moment ago also was to the effect that when he 
was offered the position of stamper he promptly declined it 1? — A. That 
is what I mean when he declined it; and I think he remained on the 
books and was understood to be eligible by myself, probaoly with the 
consent of the Commission ; but he was not improperly appointed as 
stamper at all. He was selected from the eligible list, and 1 think sub- 
sequently there was some action with reference to Cumming that in- 
volved perhaps the appointment to a clerkship. 

Q. I understand ; but I am trying to get at the point. As I under- 
stand Major Webster was speaking a moment ago that when Cumming 
was appointed in May, it was to a place not excepted from the classified 
service. — A. It is my impression that he declined the place of stamper, 
and it was proposed to make him a clerk, and that the whole matter 
was suspended until the order of the Commission could be received. 

Q,. That is the explanation which you made in your first examination 
as read by Mr. Webster just now. — A. Well, 1 did not know that 5 I did 
not recognize it. 

Q. But I mean when you were examined a few moments ago you 
made the statement to which I have just called your attention. — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, Mr. Webster read a question which he propounded to you 
at Milwaukee when he was there in 1888, in substance the same as this 
that 1 have just put to you, and your answer then was as it is recorded 
here. — A. At Milwaukee ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Webster. The question of Mr. Cumming's appointment was 
referred to the Commission. 



252 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Mr. Stone. Eead this. 

Mr. Webster. That is what I am reading from. That is the answer 
which was referred to the Commission on receipt of the restoration to 
eligibility. "The letter of the Commission was construed to cover the 
original appointment from May 1, 1888. He was restored to his posi- 
tion in the office, his service having been suspended in the meantime, 
and the records should be duly corrected as to his eligibility in accord- 
ance with the decision of the Commission, in case Ms eligibility was 
deemed not to date back to his original appointment." 

Mr, Stone. Now, he says you ought to reconcile any discrepancies, 
real or apparent, between this statement made in Milwaukee, and the 
statement you have made here to-day concerning Mr. Cummin g. 

The Witness. What is the discrepancy, Mr. Stone f 

Mr. Stone. Well, he calls attention 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. He was appointed there apparently, and you are asked the question 
about his appointment of May 1, 1888, to the position of stamper "? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Illegally, without certification ; and you now explain it by saying 
that he was never appointed to a classified place. He was appointed 
to an excepted place there. You were explaining that his appointment 
was irregular ; but that you immediately suspended him as soon as you 
learned it, and applied for authority to restore him to the eligible reg- 
ister, and that you sought that authority to be given you there. — A. My 
recollection of the facts as the conversation proceeds are substantially 
these : Cumming was certified to me the first time as a stamper. He 
appeared at my office and declined the position, and then subsequently 
I construed the case of a certain clerkship, that of the custody of stamps 
at the office, an excepted position. I had some doubt upon the sub- 
ject, but proposed to give him that position if he would accept it. In 
the meantime, in order to cover all questions as to the facts the opinion 
of the Commission was asked as to his position, and a request made to 
restore him. We received the information or action of the Commission. 
In the meantime, or about that time, the Department sent him an act 
of the persons exempted from examination in the office, and that I con- 
strued to cover the whole matter. I think that is as near as my recol- 
lection goes. 

Q. Did you make that explanation to me when I was in Milwaukee ? — 
A. Perhaj)s not. I do not remember. It is very difficult to remem- 
ber these details. 

Q. Did you not explain to me then that you thought his appointment 
was all right as stamper and that you were authorized to make it by 
the Civil Service Commission ? — A. Yes, sir ; that was so. 

Q. And that was to the position of stamper ? — A. Yes, sir ; that is 
what I say now, but he declined the position. 

Q. When did he decline it ? — A. He declined, I think, upon receiving 
his apx^ointment ; that is my impression. 

Q. When did he go on duty in the office'? — A. Well, he did not go on 
duty finally until he received information, I think, of the action of the 
Commission. I am not positive about the exact date. 

Q. Well, he did not go on until after you had obtained the informa- 
tion from the Commission *? — A. I will not be positive about whether he 
went on at that time or not. 

Q. Did you not state to me that he had been on duty and you sus- 
pended him until you could get this information from the Commission ? — 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 253 

A. I think very likely it is a fact that his appointment was sus- 
pended, but not his service. 

Q. When did he go on duty, then ? — A. Well, sir, I can not state the 
precise date. I have no means of recollecting. 

Q. Did he go on duty prior to the time of the investigation that we 
held at Milwaukee? — A, Well, I can not state that. He went on duty 
I think, permanently, on receipt of the order of the Commission, but I 
will not be positive about that. It may have been — I do not see what 
the question really is, anyway. 

Q, The question involved the appointment of a man without any cer- 
tification to you whatever so far as to any record, either inforoial or 
formal. — A. Well, I have given my testimony upon that point. 

Q. Well, now you say he was appointed to an excepted place, do you *? — 
A. Subsequently ; yes, sir. 

Q. When ? — A. Well, that date I can not give you. 

Q. Prior to the investigation that we held in Milwaukee in Septem- 
ber, 1888 ? — A. But he gives it himself. 

Mr. Stone. He swore he had never been aijpointed to any position 
under the civil service. 

The Witness. Mr. Gumming does not give it in his affidavit. 

Mr. Webster. You made a report to the Commission, did you not, 
in August of the number of excepted places — gave a complete list? 
This is a report of that, I believe, of all your excepted places, and the 
names of persons on duty in excepted places. — A. What is the date of 
making the appointment, May 1, 1887? 

By the Chairman : 

Q. May 1 ?— A. 1887. 

Q. May 1, 1887. Did you find the name of Charles J. Cumming on 
that list ?— A. No, sir. 

Q. ]^ot on the list "? — A. I find in that place the name of another per- 
son holding it. 

Mr. Webster. Then Charles J. Cumming's name is not on your list 
of excepted persons (persons excepted from examination) that you sent 
to the Commission ? — A. What is the date of that? 

The Chairman. The date of the letter is August C, 1888. — A. What 
is the date of the letter of the Commission ? 

Mr. Webster. June 16, 1888.— A. June 16, 1888— it may bo an 
omission from the record. 

The Chairman. Well, now you have just told that. Here is Albert 
Trumpf. He was appointed stamper March 1, 1888, in place of some 
one who was transferred. I can not read his name. 

Mr. Webster. Wigman. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. And you state that this man Cumming was afterwards put in 
Trump! 's place? — A. Yes, sir; he succeeded him. 

Q. Well, but that is considerably over a year after you made the ap- 
pointment of Cumming. — A. I have already explained that Mr. Gum- 
ming did not immediately take possession. Of course the place had 
been filled. 

Q. I did not understand that answer, please. — A. My remembrance, 
Mr. Chairman, of the fact is that in the first place Mr. Cumming was 
certified to me as a stamper. He declined the position. In the next 
place I proposed to transfer in the office Mr. Trumpf from the general 
delivery, and to put Mr. Cumming in his place. 

Q. At that time? — A. Subsequently j then Mr. Gamming was nomi- 



254 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

nally placed in this position until Mr. Trumpf s transfer and finally Mr. 
Cumming was placed in the j^ositiou of Mr. Trumpf. Mr. Trumpf went 
into the money-order office. Kow, that is the order of proceeding, but 
the dates I can not give you. 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. Do you mean to say that Mr. Cumming was never employed in 
your office at all until he took the place of Mr. Trumpf as stamper 
clerk 1 — A. I think not. 

Q. Which was an excepted place? — A. I think not. 

Q. Never had any employment prior to that. Did you not admit to 
me that he was employed at the time I was in Milwaukee taking testi- 
mony about the first part of September"? — A. What time was Mr. 
Trumpf transferred ? That may be possible. 

Q. You do not state, but up to August 6, 1888, he hi;d not apparently 
been transferred. He was then stamp clerk.— A. I presume that was 
the exact case. If I made that statement I think it must be correct. 

Q. Was he not employed prior to the time of my investigation in 
your office, as stamper? — A. I do not think he was there. 

Q. You think he never was t — A. I think he never was. He says 
himself in his affidavit he never was in any classified position. 

Q. Prior to September. I made the investigation between Septem- 
ber 4 and 10. — A. Yes. 

Q. Prior to that time you say that Cumming was never employed in 
your office as stamper?— A. I think he never went into the service. No, 
sir ; that is my impression about it. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Do you recollect, Mr. Paul, about the time when Cumming first 
went into the service in any capacity ? — A. I can not give the date. 

Q. Was it in 1887 ? — A. I can not give the date of any clerk in my 
office without referring to the record. I had entirely too much to re- 
member of that kind to undertake to do it. It is impossible for me to 
remember these with any degree of certainty, but I can not see the 
point involved in all this. 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. The point is this : I asked you the question at the start, whether 
there was any certification at any time whatever for the appointment 
of Charles J. Cumming for the position of stamper on the 1st of May, 
1888 ? — A. The answer to that is : I answered in the affirmative. 

Q. That he was certified ? — A. Yes, sir ; that he was certified and 
selected for the place of stamper. 

Q. When was that certification made? — A. Now you commence to 
ask me details. It is impossible for any living man to remember 

The Chairman. The witness has stated that the certification was 
made, even if it does not appear in the official records. 
By Mr. Webster : 

Q. You admitted to me when I was up there prior to the coming of 
the Commission. Do you remember? — A. No, sir. I do not remember. 

Q. Let me read this letter of yours. Perhaps it may throw some light 
upon things : 

May :iO, 1888. 

Perhaps it will be best to go back to the letter of Mr. Shidy, of May 
17, 1888. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 255 

Milwaukee, Wis., May 17, 1888. 
Sirs: Charles Cumming, an eligible under the civil-service rules, was on the 18th 
day of February, 1888, certified for appointment as stamper, which position he 
refused to accept. He was again certfiied the same day for the same position. This was 
his third certihcation, as he had been twice certified previously. He has now recon- 
sidered his refusal to accept the position of stamper, and the postmaster wishes to 
appoint him. Can he do so? An immediate answer will greatly favor 
Yours, respectfully, 

H. Shidy, Secretary. 
Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C. 

In answer to that the Commission stated, he could not be certified; 
that he had already been certified. The substance of that it is not nec- 
essary to read. 

Milwaukee, Wis., May 30, 1888. 
Hon. John H. Oberly, 

President Civil Service Commission : 

Sir : Mr. H. Shidy, secretary board of examiners at this office, has shown me your 
letterof the 25th instant, in whichyou give the opinion that Charles Gumming is not 
entitled to further certification under the rules in force February 18 last, on the 
ground that "when the position of stamper — the position for which he was exam- 
ined—was offered to Cumming and declined by him, his rights under his examination 
were exhausted." 

I thinls the conclusion in this case based on a misapprehension of the facts, arising 
from an imperfect statement of them by the secretary, and is, therefore, unjust to the 
person whose privileges are involved, and also to the public service. Referring to the 
record for verification, permit me to state 

I would like to state here iu reference to the record 

The Witness. That is what letter f 

Mr. Webster (continuing the reading of the letter): 

Charles Cumming was not examined for the place of stamper, but for that of letter 
carrier. At the time he was first certified vo me for a stamper his name was at the 
head of the eligible list for the place of carrier, and, as the stampers' list was nearly 
exhaasted, his name was used simply to make the certification as to number complete. 
This without his knowledge or request. On the same day (February 18) he was cer- 
tified three times ; first as carrier, when an eligible for clerk was appointed, and 
twice for stamper under circumstances as above stated. But he was not examined 
for stamper, did not then desire the place of stamper, and declined the place of 
stamper simply because he preferred the place for which he was examined. He was 
not appointed a carrier, because I did not believe him old enough and strong enough 
at that time for the duty. 

Has he thus forfeited his " rights," as expressed by you ? In other words, has the 
Government forfeited its rights to a first-class man, marking 89, by certifying his 
name to an inferior position without his consent ? Can the appointing official sacri- 
fice all the eligibles on the list by calling for their certifications to inferior positions, 
which he must know they will not accept, without their knowledge or consent ? 

Mr. Cumming declined lower positions while he thought the opportunity possible 
for appointment to the position to which he aspired ; and now that such opportunity 
has passed away, is willing to accept a lower place, to the advantage of the service, 
and I accordingly nominated him for the position of stamper, holding his acceptance 
subject to your opinion ; but I had not dreamed that the Commission had closed the 
door of public service against an eligible of higher grade. 

Respectfully asking further consideration of this case, I am, very truly, 

Geo. H. Paul, F. M. 

That is your letter in which you state the fact that you had nomi- 
nated him for the position of stamper on the 30th of May. — A. The 30th 
of May. That is undoubtedly the fact ; the letter so states. 

Q. But consent was not then given; and subsequently, on the 16th of 
June, 1888, it was. I read further : 

Milwaukee, Wis., June 9, 1888. 
Hon. John H. Oberly, 

Acting President Civil Service Commission : 

Sir: Replying to your communication of 6th instant, permit me to state that Cum- 
ming's name appears at the head of the register of eligibles for carrier at this office, 
as having been examined October 19, 1887, with an average standing of 89.j^,,and 



256 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

that the secretary of the local board claims to have duly reported the examination of 
that date. Your statement of all the facts as to Gumming is accordingly correct, and 
your conclusion that " he was and is entitled to three certifications for position in the 
grade for which he was examined " accords with my opinion and action in this par- 
ticular. 

I shall request the secretary of the hoard of examiners at this ofiQce to forward to 
you at once a duplicate report of the examination of October 19, 1887, 

You remark, further, that "the only circumstance which could justify his (Cum- 
ming's) certification to the position of stamper, even with his consent, would be the 
depletion of the eligible register below the number required for a single certifica- 
tion," etc. Such was precisely the fact in the case of Gumming, and the depletion of 
the stamper list could not well have been foreseen. In fact, the depletion of lists as 
to competent men can rarely be foreseen, or provided for, without a considerable in- 
crease in the number of examinations, much to the inconvenience of the public serv- 
ice at this ofiice, where clerical aid is limited to the last point of endurance. 

Moreover, to make certification from a higher to a lower grade is obviously a great 
advantage to the public service, since it not only provides for the deficiency of de- 
pleted lists, but enables the appointing ofiicer to secure a higher grade of service than 
otherwise. 

Furthermore, certifications from higher to*Iower grades was distinctly authorized 
at this office, in a letter from the Civil Service Commission, dated September 18, 1885, 
and signed by Robert D. Graham, secretary, in which he says : "Those who have taken 
higher examinations as clerks or carriers may, of course, be certified to these lower 
places, and for this purpose may be transferred to the lower registers on their re- 
quest." And certifications of this kind have been frequently made to me at this 
office, under this authority, largely to the benefit of the service, inasmuch as it has in 
many cases secured a better ability and education in lower i)laces than could other- 
wise be obtained, and also permitting more convenience in promotions on the ground 
of qualification and merit. This is illustrated in the case of Gumming, standing at 
90 on clerical list and accepting the place of stamper. 
Respectfully, 

Geo. H. Paul, P. M. 

Ycu say " accepting the place of stamper." Now, the letter of the 
Commission in reply to that was dated "June 16, 1888," and author- 
izes the restoration of his name to the eligible list for the purpose of 
certification to you for a position and appointment. Now that shows 
the argument that you made in the case to secure his appointment or 
the approval of the Commission to the appointment that you hadalready 
made by appointing him to the position of stamper on May 1. — A. Why 
not put that letter in testimony I 

Mr. Webster. This can go in evidence if it is not in evidence, and 
as an exhibit. It is a part of this 

The Chairman. And the appointment was made before you had the 
authority to make it. That is the way I understand it from the read- 
ing of the letter. — A. No, sir; I did not so understand it. 

Mr. Weester. The appointment was made before the letter or any 
of those letters were written. You appointed Charles J. Cummiug be- 
fore you wrote any of those letters, did you not ? — A. I selected him 
from a certification. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. When did you appoint him? — A. Well, I can not tell. 

Q. Is it not on your list there ? — A. How ? 

Q. Is it not on your list that he was appointed May 1, to date from 
May 1 ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is the date of the appointment ? — A. That is to an excepted 
position. Of course I can not give all the dates of my clerks except 
from the records as they existed at that time. 

Q. Well, of course the record shows, then, that the appointment was 
made May 1, and that the authority for the appointment and the let- 
ters in the case were in June, 1888, after the act had been done. — A. 
But you understand, as I do, when he was appointed it was not on the 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 257 

authority of the letter, but to au excepted position which did not re- 
quire any authority. That is my 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. He was appointed as stami)er, as shown by these records "? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. The whole of yonr letter is in regard to a stamper — asking his 
appointment as stamper, getting his certification by permission ? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he decline the position you offered ? — A. Yes, sir ; but his 
declination was made between that time. He at one time declined, and 
at another accepted. Now, I can not arrange these facts. You will 
have to give me time to look them up. 

Q, Does not this report, which you have in your own handwriting 
corrected, show that there was a certification to you on September 7 for 
that appointment ? — A. September 7, That is Shidy's record. That 
is all I know about that. 

Q. We commenced our investigation at your office September 4; then 
he made the certification to you to cover the appointment of a man who 
was already in your office when we commeuced our investigation. — A. 
If the committee would like a complete record of Shidy's action in the 
matter I would be very glad to furnish it, but I can not give it from re- 
membrance. I will say, however, that he never was to my knowledge 
appointed without authority under any circumstances. There were 
particular pains taken, as my letter shows, and I think he never held a 
classified position at all — that is, occupied one. He may have been 
nominated 

Q. You stated to me when I \^'^as in Milwaukee that he had been sus- 
pended pending this investigation of the committee. — A. That is pos- 
sible. 

Q. And that you thought that that permission covered his appoint- 
ment ; that there was no necessity for any certification ; that you did 
not have any name. — A. Yes, sir ; possibly I may have regarded it as 
covering the appointment. I will say there was no appointment to any 
classified position without certification. ISTo appointment 

Q. Thomas J. O'Neill was ajjpointed in your office, was he not, as a 
stamper ? — A. I think there was such a man. 

Q. August 1, 1888, was the date of his appointment? — A. Thomas J. 
O'Neill, as stamper; yes, sir. 

Q. Was he not actually at work in your office at the time we com- 
menced our investigation there in September, 1888, as a stamper ? — A. 
His appointment was August 1. 

Q. Then he was actually employed there in the first part of the fall 
when we were investigating ? — A. I can not say as to that. I presume so. 

Q. He had been at work there prior to our Investigation as stamper "} 
— A. I think so. 

Q. Had he been certified to you at the time when we commenced our 
investigation in any manner, or even as stamper? — A. The record has 
him certified on the 7th of September. 

Q. Well, we commenced our investigation the 4th of September there, 
you will remember? — A. No, sir; I do not remember. 

Q. He had not been certified to you when we were there — when we 
commenced our investigation ? — A. What is the question about it? 

Q. I want to know by what authority you appointed him to the posi- 
tion of stamper. — A. Prior to September 7 ? 

Q. Y^es. — A. Undoubtedly to fill a vacancy. I do not think he was 
appointed then. Let me see. Did you say he had not been certified 2 
3117—17 



258 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. The certification as on tliere is August 7, is it not — according to 
your statement 1 

The Chairman. September 7. — A. September is given as the date 
on the record of the board as the date of the certification. 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. There had been no certification prior to that date, had there ? — 
A. Well, I have a memorandum here that this man was certified as the 
only man on the stamper list, and that certification was made in July. 

Q. In July? — A. In July. It is so here on my memorandum. I 
think that is from Shidy's memorandum on the back. Whether he put 
it on afterwards or not I can not tell. 

Q. There was nothing upon the back when we reported there, was 
there °? — A. I can not say. 

Q. Do you not remember signing for that, and that certification be- 
ing made during the time we were at your office"? — A. I remember 
something about it, but I can not say. 

Q. There was no certification on the book when we came there, was 
there *? — A. Well, that I can not say, Mr. Webster, whether there was 
or not. If you have any statement by me there I would like to see it. 

Q. Do you remember calling in Mr. Shidy and asking him to explain 
to you what this man was certified from and what he would be certified 
from ? — A. I remember something similar to that as to some man, but 
I can not tell you anything about this man. 

Q. There was no kind of certification when we were there in regard 
to him. — A. On record, you mean 1 

Q. Of any kind ? — A. No, the record 

Q. Did you not make diligent search at that time to find something to 
give A. Sir ? 

Q. At that time when we were there is that not true? — A. Well, I 
can not remember, sir, what occurred in the case at all except this 
memorandum. 

' By the Chairman : 

Q. Was this memorandum in existence at that time, or has that been 
made since?— A. I can not say whether that is a copy or not. 

Q. Was that sheet of paper in existence at that time ? — A. No, sir ; 
this paper was not in existence. 

Q. It was made since? — A. Yes, sir; it was made since. I think I 
made a memorandum of the facts afterwards. You call attention to tbe 
fact that the original certification was made in July. I do not know 
whether he has an affidavit on tbe subject or not. There is certainly no 
evidence of any impropriety on the part of the postmaster that I can see. 

By Mr. Webster : 

Q. There is one other point here that I want to make an inquiry 
about in regard to Mr. Trumpf. You state, I think in answer to some 
questions yesterday by Mr. Liutl, that Mr. Trumpfl' was appointed to au 
excepted place and never held any other position whatever than an ex- 
cepted place, as I understood you ? — A. Yes, sir ; that is what I said 
myself. 

Q. Did you not have him certified to you for appointment ? — A. I 
can not say, sir. 

Q. Was he not certified to you on Aj^ril 14, 1888 ? — A. I think not, 
sir ; still he may have been. 

Q. Well, the record does show that he was certified to you on 
April 14, 1888, for a position as clerk, aud that he was selected and that 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 259 

his appointment dated March 1, 1888. He was not examined until 
March 10, 1888, and he entered upon the duties of the office March 23, 
1888.— A. Certified April 14— appointed March 1? 

Q. Yes. — A. That is the way you have it. 

Q. That is right. — A. Appointed to an excepted place j was never 
appointed under that certification. 

Q. You had appointed him already to a position which . you thought 
to be excepted, had you not ? — A. Yes, sir ; I thought so. 

Q. You were afterwards informed that that place was not excepted ; 
that you had no right to except it without the authority of the Post- 
master-General? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not write to the Postmaster-General to get that place ex- 
cepted afterwards? — A. I have no recollection of doing so. Possibly I 
did, but I have no recollection of it. 

Q. Now, in answer to a question which I put to you, you said — I will 
give you the question : 

Q. Albert L.TrumplBf was appointed, as a clerk on March 1, 1888, on a certification 
dated April 14, 1888. Explain that appointment. 

Your answer was — 

Trumpff was appointed to a place regarded by me as excepted, being personally 
responsible to the appointing officer for funds placed in his possession as stamj) clerk 
at the general delivery window. At that time he was eligible to certification, I 
think. Subsequently, for the first time my attention was called to the fact that in 
order that a position should be excepted it should be reported formally through the 
Post-Office Department to the Commission. This information cam» from a letter from 
the Commission, I think, to Dr. Shidy. I immediately called for a certification from 
the board and appointed Mr. Trumpff under it in addition to his previous appoint- 
ment until the position could be certified to the Commission through the Department 
at Washington as an excepted one. Immediately after such action I received from 
the Department itself a notification to furnish a list of all excepted positions in the 
office for approval by the Commission, which I did, includiDg the position occupied 
by Mr. Trumpft". 

A. Here is Mr. Trumpff 's statement in explanation of the matter, made 
of his own accord. 

Q. I only wanted to ask you whether you did not appoint him to that 
position without any certification originally. — A. I think I did. 

Q. Did you know at that time that he had not been examined ? — A. 
I did not know whether he had a certification or not. I appointed him, 
as I supposed, to an excepted position. 

Q. Did you know at that time that he had not been examined, 
either ? — A. He had not been examined. No, sir. I was very sorry, 
indeed, that he had not. That is not the fact, but still I prefer to find 
my own dates [reading] : 

State of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, ss : 

Albert Trumpff, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has read a statement 
published in the so-called supplemental report of the Civil Service Commission as 
emanating from one H. Shidy, late of the Milwaukee post-office, declaring that I 
was appointed to a position in said office March 1, 1888, again about the 23d, and not 
even examined until March 17, the papers not being marked and listed till the 30th 
nor myself certified till April 14, 1888. Said Trumpff" further states that he has never 
received an appointment to any civil service position in this office Avhatever. " It is 
true that I was duly examined, receiving the second highest mark on the whole list, 
and was certified and subsequently nominated to a position which was immediately 
filled by me, but was declared by the Commissioner an excepted position before I 
began work which fact sufficiently accounts for the misapprehension of the Commis- 
sion. 

State of Wisconsin, Mihvaulcee County. 
Subscribed and sworn to the 22d of July, 1889, before me. 

T. B. Fahoel, 
Notary Public, Milwaulcee County, State of Wisconsin, 



260 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. It was not an excepted place at the time you made the appoint- 
ment ? — A. Yes, sir ; I regarded it as an excepted place under general 
law. 

Q. It was not in fact au excepted place. It had not been excepted 
bv the Post-Office Department ?— A. I think so. I spoke of that as au 
expression of opinion by the Commission. All places of responsibility 
to the postmaster under his bond, I think, are considered as excepted 
places. 

Q. You so consider it 1 — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But he had not been excepted by any authority ?— A. ISTo clerk in 
the Milwaukee 

Q. Had he been excepted by any authority at that time when you 
made the appointment ! — A. ^o clerk in the Milwaukee 

Q. Will you answer the question about this ?™A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had he been excepted at the time you made the appointment ? — 
A. Well, if you want me to answer that question you must not allow 
me simply to make a statement that is only partial in the matter. 

Q. I want an answer to that question, That is all I want. — A. I 
think a statement of the entire fact is simply just. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. According to your idea your opinion was that it was an excepted 
position ? — A. Yes, sir ; under the law. 

Q. That is all that is necessary for you to state. You understood it 
so 1 — A. It was a position as much excepted as the chief of the money- 
order division. It was excepted in the same sense as any other posi- 
tion in my office. 

Mr. Stone. There had been, in point of fact, no action of the Depart- 
ment especially excepting this particular place? — A. Not technically 
according to the law, but the law excepted these positions, and we post- 
masters always recognize the law in regard to them. 

Mr. Thompson. This is taken from the National Democrat, but it is 
said to be a copy of a letter published in the New York Star. Mr. Paul 
says : 

Further and again, I deny that I ever misrepresented to the Commissioners the 
time when my commission would expire. On the contrary, I gave them the exact 
date, and can prove it. 

Now, Mr. Paul, is that correct ? 

The Witness. Yes, sir ; I think it is. The whole statement is cor- 
rect ; if the chairman will allow me 

The Chairman. Mr. Stone, at this time do you desire to examine the 
witness 1 

The Witness. I would like to state one word in explanation. I did 
not ever purposely or in fact in my own opinion misrepresent the time 
when my commission would expire. I think I gave to one or all the 
members of the Commission the exact date when my commission would 
be out, but I did say that my time was about up, because I had ar- 
ranged for the selection of my successor, and requested that his name 
be sent on for appointment as early as practicable. Now, the substance 
of all that is this : I am very certain I did say, "As to a portion of 
those facts, they can be proven, and I think all of them. If you will 
give me your attention I think I will prove the entire statement." I 
can not see that it is essential anyway, because I said very pointedlj'- 
that my time was about out, and the Commission itself, without such 
examination, ought to know when the commission of every postmaster 
expires if they do not. That is all I have to say. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION, 261 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. You were appointed postmaster about the middle of 1885, and 
held the office until about the middle of 1889, covering a period of about 
four years one month and a half? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q.'Who was your immediate predecessor"? — A. Henry C. Payne. 

Q. That office was under the civil-service law during his administra- 
tion ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Indeed, since the law became operative ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you entered the office as postmaster what was the total 
force of all grades employed? — A. I should think that — - 

Q. I would like to have it accurately if you can give it ? — A. I do not 
know that I can give that, Mr. Stone. Let me see. I can only get at 
that answer, Mr. Stone, by recollection and a little calculation. I do 
not carry those statistics in my head. In June, 1885, the number of 
carriers was very many less than the last of September, 1889, when I 
went out. There were sixteen carriers added 5 there were about eighty 
carriers. 

Q. Your answer is rather anticipating some questions that I might 
ask.— A. Well, I should say there were one hundred and forty-one 
holding places July 15, 1889, that figure is correct. The total number 
was placed July 15, 1889, at one hundred and forty-one, exclusive of 
some agencies, which would be ten, and of messenger boys, which would 
be five ; that would be fifteen and one hundred and forty-one, which 
makes one hundred and fifty-six. Now, I should think there were as 
many as that. I would estimate the number of new appointments m 
the carriers division to be between twenty-five and thirty. There was 
a large increase of carriers — twenty -five or thirty increase of carriers ; 
the clerks not as many. I should say nearly ten, perhaps, increase of 
clerks, so that if you will deduct say forty from the total — thirty-five or 
forty from the total number — I think you will get at about the right 
number, which will make 

Q. One hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty ?-™A. Yes, 
sir; somewhere along there ; one hundred and ten to one hundred and 
twenty perhaps. 

Q. Of that number how many were in the classified service "? — A. I 
can only give ray impression as to that number. 

Mr. Andrew. You said from one hundred and fifteen to one hundred 
and twenty-five. 

Mr. Stone. ISTo; from one hundred and ten to one hundred and 
twenty? — A. From one hundred and ten to one hundred and twenty. 
I should say that is in the classified service, if that is the number you 
wish to know. By the way, that can all be figured out by these statis- 
tics, but it would take some little time. I would say that always as a 
rule in the classified service there were a trifle more than one-half of all 
the clerical force — say one-half of the clerical force — about 50 per cent. 
By Mr. Roosevelt : 

Q. Mr. Paul, when we went up to Milwaukee and examined you are 
you positive you told us the date when your commission would ex- 
pire ? — A. Well, sir, that is my very strong impression that I gave you 
the exact date; at least the date of the month in which it was to expire. 
I can not say I gave you the exact day of the month. 

Q. You told us about the time it would expire ? — A. I am very i^osi- 
tive I did. 

Q. Did you tell it to any one Commissioner or to all three ? — A. Well, 
I can not say I gave it to all the Commissioners. 



262 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Because we are all three williug to testify under oath that you 
never told us anything of the sort ; that on the contrary you told us 
that your term was out, and that you were just hanging on until your 
successor would be appointed f — A. My time was out. 

Q. Tour time was out ? — A. I am perfectly willing to allow, Mr. Eoose- 
velt, that there might have been a misapprehension on the part of the 
Commission of the manner in which I spoke of that ; but not thinking 
I was being investigated, and not being asked the direct question in 
regard to that 

Q. Mr. Paul, in our supplementary report, as I think you call it, of 
your office, do you recollect that the statement occurs that " we never 
accepted the unsupported statements of Shidy?" — A. I remember that 
expression occurs. 

Q. It occurs in the report ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That we base it entirely upon your own testimony. — A. I think not 
entirely. 

Q. We base it almost entirely upon your own statement and upon the 
analytical statement compiled from the records. — A. Why, sir, the 
report will show for itself. 

Q. Tou recollect that. Do you recollect in the report that it is also 
shown that when we went up there to investigate you that we did not 
try to get out any new facts in that case ; but simply (of course 1 am 
only quoting from memory) to see if you could disprove the charges 
made in Major Webster's and Mr. Doyle's report ? — A. I remember a 
reference to that report, but I do not remember that exact statement. 

Q. The statement is in the report. You can see it by referring to the 
report, Mr, Chairman. Kow, Mr. Paul, did you not say yesterday, in 
stating to Governor Thompson that you did not remember my saying to 
you, '' These are very grave charges, Mr. Paul, and we want to see 
what you can say in answer to them," or words to that effect ? — A. I do 
not remember that, Mr. Eoosevelt. 

Q. You state you do not remember that, Mr. Paul ? — A. l^o, sir. 

Q. I believe you also state that you could not say that it had been 
made to you. — A. I may be incorrect. 

Q. In your memory ? — A. Yes, sir. Well, I can say positively, how- 
ever, that there was nothing said to give me the impression that I was in 
any manner seriously involved in any investigation. 

Q. Well, I propose to contradict you upon that point by the testimony 
of my colleagues and myself, that we exiilicitly told you that these were 
very grave charges against you, and we wanted to hear your defense. — 
A. You may have made the remark " that they were grave changes." 
Perhaps in my innocence I did not take the aj^plication to myself. I 
certainly did not 

Q. Now, Mr. Paul, I want to try to call to your mind some of the cir- 
cumstances of our investigation of you. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember how we entered — suppose the room stands like 
this ; the desk is off there in the room [indicating] "? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you sat down on this side of the desk here which Mr. Lelbach 
is occuj)ying, as if the desk were behind him, and I sat in a place about 
like that [illustrating]. — A. Yes, sir 5 you are correct. 

Q. And Governor Thompson sat on my left hand and Mr. Lyman on 
my right. — A. I think Mr. Lyman sat near the desk. 

Q. Well, one on either hand, then. — A. Yes ; but it does not make any 
practical difference. 

Q. And I did most of the examining of you, and sometimes my two 
colleagues would A. Yes, sir. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 263 

Q. Assist me. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Governor Thompson, ever cautious, was tlic man who asked you 
specifically when your term of office expired, to which you made that 
answer? — A. I think there were some words of a social character passed 
between the governor and myself soon after he entered the office, and if 
this remark fell from me it came voluntarily, not supposing that it was 
a matter of any official moment. 

Q. You think it was not in response to a question of the governor 1 — 
A . I think perhaps he might have asked me when my term of office ex- 
pired, or something of that kind. 

Q. To which you may have answered that your time was about up and 
that you were hanging on until your successor should be appointed ? — 
A. My time was about up, and until my successor could be ap- 
pointed — that is about the substance of it. 

Q. Then you do not recollect telling us the date, or thereabouts, when 
your term expired ? — A. I think I gave to one of the Commissioners 
sooner or later the exact date when my commission would expire. 

Q. Have you any memory to which Commissioner you gave that ? — 
A. !N"o, sir J I have not. 

Q. We are all willing to testify under oath that it never was given ?— 
A. Well, I presume so. 

Q. Now, Mr. Paul, we examined you on these two exhibits which I 
hold in my hand ; these two exhibits, A and B, being analytical state- 
ments from the record book, and your own statement. — A. Just in that 
condition ? 

Q. Precisely as they are now ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recollect "? — A. That was in the morning, was it not ^ 

Did you not have your questions there the first day that you were 
there"? 

Q. I had them with me. — A. I think you did the first day. 

Q. But at any rate A. In the morning, I think, you had one of 

them. I do not think you had both at that time. 

Q. I had both, and read from them, and then I would ask you ques- 
tions about them, and then pass them over to you 5 and then I think 
you would put on your glasses and look at them so, and then say: 
" They refer to Mr. Shidy 5 not to me." — A. I think you are entirely 
mistaken about that. 

Q. You think I am entirely mistaken ? — A. Yes. I do not think I 
ever saw a single page of that testimony through glasses or in any 
other way. 

Q. I intend to testify under oath that you did, and held it in your 
hand and looked it over, and have my colleagues testify to the same 
effect. — A. I think you handed me a copy of that, and I did not know 
that that was the testimony of the year before until near the time that 
you left the office finally. 

Q. What did you think I was reading from then? but I will quote 

your statement in the testimony. Did you think I was reading from 

A. Well, I suspected that you had taken some memoranda from the 
Commission in reference to the office, and were asking questions about 
it; but it never occurred to me 

Q. For instance, if you will wait a minute, when I said to you as I 
did again and again: "Mr. Paul, you say this; what did you mean by 
it? You say that; what do you mean by that? You put that statement 
there ; what do you mean by that ? " Do you mean to say you thought 
I was simply referring to memoranda taken in the office ? — A. No, sir. 
That was near the close of your conversation, or examination, as you 
choose to call it. Near the close you inquired of me if I made such and 



264 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION 

siicli a statement, loolcing at the single document in yonr liand. That 
was near the close of the visit. Then for the first time I suspected you 
had this old testimony, which I understood had been rejected as frivo- 
lous. 

Q. Aud you are quite confident, then, sir; that I did not pass them 
to you, and that you did not look them over and say that they were mat- 
ters that were for Shidy and not for you to explain, and then passed the 
book back to me'? — A. I am very confident I never had one of those pa- 
pers in my hand. I do not know now this morning, nor could I tell if 
I were put ujion my oath upon that special subject whether that is ray 
own or any other manuscript. I do not know a thing there is in any of 
those papers. 

Q. I propose to show by the testimony of my two colleagues that what 
I state occurred, Mr. Paul. — A. I have some witnesses on that subject, 
too, if it is necessary. 

Q. Do you mean to say witnesses who were j^resent at this inter- 
view ? — A. One or two. 

The Chairman. Who were present at this interview "? — A. The chiet 
clerk in the office, and I think one other. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. Where was he? — A. At that time, that morning? 

The Chairman. So the chief clerk of the office was in the room at 
that time ? — A. A portion of the time ; yes, sir. 

By Mr. Eoosevblt: 

Q. He was not there very much of the time ? — A. Not much of the 
time. 

Q. Then the chief clerk would testify that while you were in that 
room you did not have any of that testimony! — A. I think so. 

Q. Who was in the room all the time? — A. I think no one all the 
time. 

Q. Who was there most of the time ? — A. I do not think any one was 
there most of the time. I am very frank to say that. 

Q. l^hen you mean that you would produce witnesses, none of whom 
were there most of the time ? — A. Except at the particular time that 
you had this manuscript or this testimony. I do not think that the 
point is very essential, anyway. 

Q. It is so essential, that we three Commissioners are going to show 
that you had this testimony before you; that we asked you on a num- 
ber of specific points, and that you kept answering that you did not 
know; that you could not say, or explain what Shidy had done at that 
meeting ; could not give us any more explanation one way or the other ; 
that Shidy was the man who had been doing all that, and that you could 

not tell us all about it. I would ask you, and then you would say 

A. Yes. 

Q. That was a matter for your own judgment; that Shidy was look- 
ing after that matter entirely, and we could not get any definite answers 
from you. However, I pass from that. — A. That is simply your way of 
justifying the suplemeutary report. I am perfectly wiMing to concede 
that there is a misapprehension on your part if you claim it. 

Q. I do not claim any misapprehension at all. Mr. Paul, I believe I 
understood you to testify to-day or yesterday that you never interfered 
at all with the work of the board of examiners ? — A. I never interfered 
in any but a jiroper manner. 

Q. Well, you never suggested to them what names to certify to you, 
for instance? — A. What names to certify? I have no recollection of 
doing that. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 2G5 

Q. Yon never told Mr. Sliirly to inclnde a certain name in the next 
certifications ? — A. iNot by way of instrnctiou or anything of the kind. 

Q. Not by way of instruction ?— A. I may have possibly said, Mr. Eoos- 
evelt,that such a name certified to me on the list of three or four, such as the 
case might be, would naturally come up in the next certification. Hav- 
ing been certified once I would know, or when in a case like that oc- 
curred to my recollection 

Q. In a case, for instance, of a higher-grade eligible agreeing to be 
transferred to the lowest list you would never tell Mr. Shidy to include 
that man in the next certification ? — A. Kot at all. 

Q. You would never tell him to include him in the next certifica- 
tion ? — A. I did not think that was necessary. 

Q. So, as a matter of fact, you did not instruct him ? — A. I did not 
instruct him. 

Q. Did you hint to him ? — A. Kot improperly, 

Q. Well, did you do it properly ? Then did you properly hint to him 
to do anything of that kin& ? — A. Well, as a matter of course, if a man 
came to me and asked to be transferred to a lower list — I think it would 
be very natural for either Mr. Shidy or myself to remark about the 

fact, but never by way of infl.uencing 

Q. Tliat is not my question, Mr. Paul. I want to know if when a 
man came to you and asked to be transferred to the lower list, if you 
ever requested that he be certified to you in the next certification 1 — 
A. Not by way of influencing the certification in the slightest. 

Q. In what way did you do it? Mr. Chairman, I do not want to 
seem to ask too many questions, but I do desire to get some answers to 
these questions. Did you or did you not sometimes ask that a given 
aame be included in the next certification % — A. No, sir ; not in the 
sense in which you mean — not in the affirmative ; not in the sense that 
I meant in any way to influence him. 

Q. In what sense, then, did you ask him ? — A. In the sense of doing 
his duty; that is all. If I ever said anything of the kind I have no 
recollection of it. 
Q. In the sense of doing his duty ? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Now, I do not quite understand — in fact, I can not understand. 
How do you mean that you would make the request that he would do it 
in the sense of doing his duty ? — A. In the first i^lace, I have no recol- 
lection of ever mentioning any name to Shidy in that connection in any 
way whatever ; and in the next place I say that it is a bare possibility 
that any man may be referred to who has made application to be trans- 
ferred. What I mean to say is this : That if any remark or reference 
was made to any applicant to be transferred it was not made with a 
view of influencing the rank of the applicant or the selection or anything 
of that kind. 

Q. Well, now, I come to another subject for a moment. I shall come 
back to that in a minute or two. You never would undertake to over- 
see and direct the work of the board where it was purely their work, 
would you ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. I mean, for instance, you would not write to the board and ask 
them the reasons for certain markings and otherwise — you would not tell 
the board how to answer? — A. Of certain markings, or tell the board 
how to answer"? No, sir. 

Q. You would not draw out a rough draught of the answer thatthe sec- 
retary was to send to us ? — A. No, sir. I know very well what you are 
getting at. There is nothing in that, Mr. Roosevelt — nothing in the 
world. You are simply losing your time and wasting the time of the 
committee. I would be very glad to state what you are driving at. 



2G6 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. I will tell itj sir. — A. I think I ought to state it. It is already in 
the evidence, every word' of it. 

Q. Well, will you tell it or i)ut it in as evidence "? — A. I did volunta- 
rily. There is nothing about that which will inculpate me in any way. 

Q. Will you tell me when it was put in evidence 1 — A. It was put in 
evidence yesterday. 

By Mr. EoosEVELT : 

Q. Now, will you state to me what I am driving at?— A. Yes, sir. I 
understand your purpose. If I am wrong, of course I would be very 
glad to be corrected. You are referring now especially to the case 
which you call " the re-marking case, " where papers were re-marked. 

Q. Y^es, sir. — A. Now, if you will permit me to state to the committee, 
or restate to the committee, the circumstances of that I would be very 
glad. 

Q. If you will permit me first I will put i^ in evidence. Here is a let- 
ter from ex-Commissioner Oberly of August 4 to Shidy, the secretary of 
the board of examiners, asking about certain apparent discrepancies in 
the markings of the certification of a number of men, and here is the 
rough draught in Mr. PauFs handwriting. I think you will acknowl- 
edge that to be your handwriting ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Of what was to be said in resi)onse by the board, and here is the 
letter of the board on the line of this draught answering the Commis- 
sion. It was a matter with which the postmaster ought properly to 
have had nothing to do. It referred purely to the duty of the board, and 
to judge from these rough draughts, (the outline of the board's reply) 
was drawn up by the postmaster and then were sent to the local board. 
— ^A. Allow me to look at that, please. 

Q. I do not notice the first or second or final letters of Mr. Shidy, 
because they reflect on Mr. Paul, or Mr. Shidy's own statement. We 
never paid any heed to it. How did you happen to state to Mr. Shidy 
about what answers the board would make? — A. Because Mr. Shidy 
was very much annoyed by the whole arrangement. 

Q. By the whole arrangement ? — A. Yes, sir ; with the re-marking ; 
very much annoyed by it. It was his disposition to make a correction 
in that marking. The board collectively, as I understand, and still un- 
derstand it, marked the papers, and Mr. Shidy came and said this : '' I 
think that marking ought to be private." It was not with reference to 
any partiality on my part in any way. There was nothing suggestive 
of that kind. 

Q. Certainly. I am not saying that you neglected your duties to 
help Shidy. Is it true that you drew up those rough draughts which he 
was to follow in his letter ? — A. The secretary went to the other mem- 
bers of the board of his own accord, and called the entire board to- 
gether to consult as to that marking. I said nothing to them in any way 
whatever. I did say this, however, when he had told me the facts, that 
I thought there was only a very small diiference between the two men ; 
that I thought one man did seem to be getting the start in the mark- 
ing, an unfair advantage, because technically he could answer one ques- 
tion very much better than any other person because of his practical 
knowledge. That question Shidy told me himself related to the differ- 
ent localities in the city of Milwaukee. That was one of the questions, 
it appears, in the examination. I never saw the question to my knowl- 
edge or recollection 5 but Shidy said that a man quite ignorant in most 
respects had received a marking of about 100 on that question, and sim- 
ply because he had been a street-car driver many years in the city. Ho 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 267 

subsequently became a caudidate for appointment as carrier. There 
was unanimous concurrence of opiuiou all around that that was certainly 
not in accordance with tlie spirit of the examination, that a man having 
that technical knowledge should supersede other men of much higher 
capacity. 

Q. Of much higher mental capacity. Kow, then,- let me see. I 

stated A. That is about what occurred; but 1 did not interfere 

with it except 

Q. You advised him to be marked down, did I gather you to say ? — 
A. I did not advise any marking up or marking down. But I simply 
said if he made any entry upon his records of his marking of the papers 
(in the permanent record) I would advise him for his own protection 
and for mine and for the good record of the ofiSce to consult the Com- 
mission as to the proceeding and give a full and frank account of the 
facts and submit them to their decision in the case. 

Q. I do not quite get the connection, Mr. Paul. What you were say- 
ing is that you disapproved of them marking a man perfect simply be- 
cause he happened to pass a- perfect examination. — A. I did not say 
that I expressed any disapproval ; I did not object in that view of the 
case by any means, because a person naturally would not object. 

Q. What did you do then, sir *?— A. Well, sir, I will tell you. I had 
nearly concluded what I had to say. The board reviewed the papers 
by themselves without dictation, without influence of any kind, without 
the least care of what they did, and after it had adjourned Mr. Shidy 
came to me and in pursuance of my suggestion that any action of that 
kind out of the usual line should be reported to the Commission for 
consideration, and asked me if I could not suggest some way or form 
of letter to the Commission giving the facts. I think he requested me 
twice, but I rather thought it was not well for me to interfere in the 
matter. Naturally, I did not say anything about ». 1 did at his re- 
quest make a suggestion, but not by the way of dictgjiion in the slight- 
est degree, but at his suggestion ; and so I did make a little memo- 
randum. It is not a letter. 

Q. It is just a memorandum ?— A. Of what I presumed to be the facts, 
for him to change or make just as he pleased. 

Q. Now just let me ask you this — you have gotten off from the point 
of this examination — what was it you said about this letter-carrier who 
was marked down — what did you say ? — A. I know what Shidy said. 
I said 

Q. I do not care what he said, but what you said. What did you 
say ? — A. I have no recollection of making any remark at all. 

Q. You did say when your attention was called to the facts that this 
man was marked very high. — A. By information from Shidy. He 
came to me to advise about it. I think he tangled his records in addi- 
tion in regard to the examination in some way ; but as to that I do not 
know. That is all. 

Q. What right had you to know about the board making these mark- 
ings or to know the candidates whom the board had marked ? How 
did you happen to know that this man had been a car-driver ?— A. I 
could not know except from Shidy. 

Q. You could not know except from Shidy ?— A. No, sir. 

Q. So Shidy told youf— A. Yes, sir; the members of the board 
talked in my presence about it. 

Q. So that the members of the board told you about the marks of 
the candidates ? This was at the time when the eligible lists were 
secret. They consulted there with you, or in your presence, about low- 



2G8 civil sfevice investigation. 

ering the marking of the candidates whom they, apparently with your 
consent, deemed to have gotten a higher marking on account of his 
knowledge of local delivery than his general education would entitle 
him. Is that so? — A. I think I became possessed of the information 
casually and partially because Shidy thought I could assist him or some 
thing of the kind. 

Q. Shiddy thought you could assist him by marking the candidates ? — 
A. ]N"o, sir; not in marking, but as to the method of proceeding. 

Q. As to remarking them? — A. Whether it would be proper for me 
to do any such thing as that. 

Q. And Shidy consulted you as to the projpriety of remarking ? — A. 
He certainly asked me something about it. 

Q. And must have told you who the man was in order that you should 
know that he had been a car-driver ? — A. Yes, sir ; that came out in 
some part of the proceedings. I do not think I knew his name at that 
time. I think I simply knew the fact of his business. 

Q. The fact of his business ? I gather from your words the proposi- 
tion was to mark this man down because he had a special knowledge of 
the streets, a knowledge directly in the line of his duty which he had 
gained as a car-driver ? — A. No, sir ; it would not be in the direct line 
of his duty. 

Q. As a letter-carrier it was in the direct line of his duty. — A. Not 
such knowledge as he would have. It would not apply to a mere 
knowledge of the district. 

Q. Oh, I misunderstood you. Just now when you said that it was 
proposed to mark him down or in some way to offset the high mark he 
had gained in consequence of his practical knowledge as a car-driver — 
that was the question that the board was determining ? — A. I do not 
think they had anything to do with it at all. 

Q. That is not answering my question. I asked you if they proposed 
to do that? — A. I do not think it was made by me at all. I did not 
overhear nor know what the conversation of the board was. 

Q, Well, then, you did not remonstrate with the board for any im- 
propriety in their conduct in remarking that man, nor you did not take 
part in their deliberations, nor write this draught, nor were you pres- 
ent ? — A. I took no part whatever. I have stated that repeatedly. I 
took no part whatever. 

Q. You were simply present at their deliberations? — A. I was scarcely 
present. I was attending to other duties. 

Q. How did you happen to know the facts so well ? — A. Sir ? 

Q. That they were engaged in remarking this man, and you were 
able to outline their letter for them afterward? — A. I knew from what 
Shidy said to me. I knew something of that kind was going on. I told 
Shidy in effect that he had better be cautious and not violate any rules 
of the civil-service law ; and whatever he did he had better consult the 
Commission. That I have told him a number of times. I think there is 
no 

Q. You wrote that rough draught of a letter that lie was to follow at his 
request ? — A. Mr. Shidy came to me after the adjournment of the board 
and said he wanted to make a proper representation of the facts, and 
at his suggestion he may have dictated a portion of it; but I do not 
think that is the letter. I do remember this, that in the course of the 
letter the particular words that "the board of its own motion" ajjpeared, 
and Shidy kept that and sent it of his own accord. 

Q. You mean that you had first put in "the board of its own motion ?" — 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 269 

A. Yes, sir ; I thought it was very important for the Commissiou to 
know 

Q. You thought it was very important for the Commission to know 
that the board had done it " of its own motion ? " — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So you put it down in the rough abstract that "the board of its 
own motion" A. The board "of its own motion" had done this. 

Q. That was put in, then, by your direction ? — A. Put in by my di- 
rection, I say; no more or no less. 

The Chairman. He came to you for advice and you gave it to him ? — 
A. Yes, sir ; I think it should be " that the board at its own suggestion 
and motion." 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q. This is your statement to Major Webster. You have already 
spoken about that to-day. You went over it after it was made and 
underlined it and then signed your name. — A. Possibly. 

Q. Did you or did you not ? — A. If you will allow me to look at it I 
can tell you positively. I have to be very cautious what statements I 
make to you, Mr. Roosevelt, for I expect you misuse them, and the 
(Commission itself misuses them, but for what reason I do not know ; I 
think the Commission has shown that disposition in my case. 

Q. Answer my question. — A. Yes, sir; that is signed by me. 

Q. Is that the statement you made to Mr. Webster and signed and 
went over and underlined any corrections you saw and then signed it? — 
A. I think so. 

Q. All right, sir. Was that statement true or was it false *? — A. It 
was true, as far as I knew at that time. 

Q. As far as you knew at that time ? — A. I may have changed my 
ojiinion upon obtaining some additional knowledge of the facts. 

Q. Now, yesterday I believe you stated that you knew nothing of 
the eligible list in advance, did you not ? — A. Of the eligible list *? I 
never knew anything of the eligible list in advance with reference to 
any selections from it. 

Q. Well, now you state to Mr. Webster in answer to the question : 

Have you generally or at any time known the state oftlie register; the order in 
which the names stood before making api)ointments ? — A. Yes ; I think I have been 
aware unavoidably of the list. 

Q. Was that the truth ? — A. I had reference wholly to this published 
list. 

Q. To the published newspaper list ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then a little further on you say as to the list of eligibles : " I 
think so, and I must say simply as a matter of truth that the secretary 
has never regarded the list of eligibles on the records as in anywise 
but a public record." — A. I do not think the secretary was ever very 
scrupulous in regard to copying his books and records properly ; but I 
was none the less careful as to my own duties and my own relations to 
the board and secretary. 

Q. You regarded the board, then, as public. You think the lists were 
made public °? — A. No, sir ; they were not. 

Q. They were not made public ■? — A. My view of the case was as I 
understood it at the time 

Q. Well, now, just let me ask you one question. I stated to you, " do 
you regard them as being public," and you said, "No, sir; I do not," 
and then you told Major Webster "I must say simply as a matter of 
truth the secretary has never regarded the list of eligibles on the record 
as in anywise but a public list." That was what you told Major Web- 
ster, was it not I— A^ Public record 1 Yes, sir. 



270 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. That means that it was open to public inspection, does it not ? — 
A. ISTot quite that. 

Q. What does it mean, sir ? — A. Take the books of any office you 
please, your office or any one's letters. They may be public records 
and still not be open to inspection to the entire public. I did not mean 
that, sir. 

Q. What did you mean "? — A. I thought Mr. Shidy up to that time 
had not regarded his record as simply an official record of eligibles, and 
he did not appreciate the consequence of keeping them wholly private. 

Q. I see. So that they were not kept private from every person ? — 
A. There were two or three, perhaps, who had access to them all the 
time. 

Q. But you did not ? They were kept private from you, but not kept 
private from other people 1 — A. They were generally kept private from 
me, as a rule. 

Q. As a rule ? — A. As a rule. 

Q. What were the exceptions to that rule ? — A. As to others ? 

Q. As to you. You say they were generally kept private from 
you? — A. I gave testimony on that point yesterday. 

The Chairman. Suppose you state it again, the exceptions, if there 
were any. — A. As I said, Shidy would take his register of eligibles, very 
frequently take it up to my room and open it in my presence and look 
at the names, and all that kind of thing; but I never would take any 
advantage of it of course. I never consulted the list. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q. You never had it in your custody, sir ? — A. No, sir ; I never had 
that list in my custody. 

Q. Mr. Shidy and Johnson testified before us in your presence that 
they had seen the books in your keeping, and on your table ? — A. If 
they testified to any such thing it is not the truth. I question very 
much whether they ever gave any such testimony. Mr. Johnson, I 
am quite sure, did not. 

Q. Mr. Johnson and Shidy both so stated in my report. — A. The ma- 
jority of the board, I am very sure, will not bear you out on that point. 

Q. Ifow, you stated to Major Webster, in answer to the question : 
" Have certifications been made to you for appointment j^rior to appoint- 
ment in writing ? " Your answer is : " The certification " — I hope you 
will give me your attention, because it is a little difficult to understand — 
" The certifications have in all cases been made tome in writing or ver- 
bally, and I think in all cases prior to appointment, with jiossibly an 
occasional variation which may have arisen on a question of construc- 
tion of the rules, or something of that kind, in which case my impres- 
sion is that in one or two cases — or a very limited number — the secre- 
tary would modify the certification to accord with the rule." IsTo w, what 
does that mean, Mr. Paul ? — A. That is substantially the same testi- 
mony as I gave yesterday in the case. 

Q. Do you mind telling me what it means f You say: " That certifi- 
cations have in all cases been made to me in writing or verbally." Do 
you mean that some certifications were made to you verbally and not in 
writing? — A. No, sir; I did not. I would not regard anything verbal 
as a certification. 

Q. What do you mean by saying : " Certifications have in all cases 
been made to rae in writing or verbally." — A. It only says that in one 
ui" two cases, does it not ? 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 271 

Q. No 5 it says simply " certifications have in all cases been made to 
me in writing or verbally." — A. What succeeds that? 

Q. "And I think in all cases prior to appointment." — A. I mean just 
this : I refer to Mr. Shidy's loose habits of doing business ; and I think 
in some cases when I called for certifications that Shidy would come to 
me in reference to the rule fixing certifications and give, perhaps, the 
certifications ; for it would be under such and such circumstances, or 
such and such constructions, and there may have been one, or perhaps 
two or three such cases as that. 

Q. And those were verbal certifications to you, as you call it ? — A. 
That is what I call it; certainly. 

Q. Now, do you mean, then, that you treated that verbal certification 
as a regular certification ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. The question was, then, of having certifications made to you for 
all appointments prior to appointment in writing 1 Your answer is : 
" The certifications have in all cases been made to me in writing or 
verbally." — A. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

Q. I will call your attention to your statement : 

I think in all cases prior to appointment, witli possibly an occasional variation, 
which may have arisen on a question of construction of the rules, or something of that 
kind, in which case my impression is that in one or two cases — a very limited num- 
ber — the secretary would modify the certification to accord with the rule. 

Now, this seems to say that in a limited number of cases you ap- 
pointed a man before he was certified to you, and that the secretary 
modified the certification to accord with the rule. I do not know what 
" to accord with the rule " means.— A. The reference to that circum- 
stance means this : The secretary would bring me, for instance, the 
names from which a selection was to be made. Perhaps he would have 
in his mind some doubt about the construction of the rule, or whether 
he had made the ceitification properly. Then Iwould have the names 
for selection, and I modified one or two cases, i do not remember any 
such case by which I would know the names. The names came before 
me for my selection, and he would arrange the certification 

Q. You mean that you would not know the names that would come 
before you — you would make an appointment and he would modify the 
certification to accord with that appointment"^ — A. No, sir; not to ac- 
cord with that appointment. 

Q. To accord with the rule? I am trying to get at what you mean 
here. — A. I did not say any such case occurred. I remember n® such 
case. In my answer I 

Q. In one or two cases your impression is — it was quite a limited 
number of cases — you would make the appointment and the secretary 
would then modify the certification in accordance? — A. Yes, sir; be- 
fore I ever made the api)ointment. It would be a name that was en- 
titled to certification, and he would bring the certification immediately 
to me. 

Q. Now the next answer you state is this : 

Without a distinct recollection of the facts, my impression is that a vacancy hav- 
ing occurred, upon inquiry as to the character of a man and knowing that he was 
eligible from previous certification I nominated him, dating his nomination from 
the time of the occurrence of the vacancy. 

A. How is that? I would like to hear that read again. 

Q. " A vacancy having occured upon inquiry as to the character of 
the man, and knowing that he was ehgible from the previous certifica- 
tions I nominated him, dating his nomination from the time of the oc- 
currence of the vacancy." — A. I did not catch the whole of it; but it is 
substantially correct. 



272 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. That is substantially correct 1 — A. It is not quite correct. 
The Chairman. Do you agree with the answer now ? — A. Not alto- 
gether. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q. In what way do you differ ? — A. I think my words are a Little 
misconstrued there 5 my idea is misconstrued. I was up the entire 
night before this testimony was taken. 

Q. Before Major Webster took the testimony ? — A. No, sir. 

Q. This is Major Webster's testimony ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. This is the testimony that was taken by Major Webster that I 
read from and which you interlined and signed your name to. — A. 
The question relates to a matter of selecting a man or choosing a man 
from a former certification. 

Q. We do not say anything about a former certification. As a matter 
of fact, there is only one certification. This is in advance of all certifi- 
cations. — A. Now, the answer is, not what might have been ; I do not 
know what might have been ; but I intended to make these answers, 
sir, so as to cover the possibility of any informality in an exceptional 
case. That is all. 

Q. You state that you had A. Allow me to complete my answer. 

Q. Certainly. — A. If a certification of certain names had been made 
to me and was on my table, for instance John Jones and two or three 
others, the other names would come up subsequently in the next certi- 
fication under the rule, as I understand it, which allows the selection of 
more than one name from the certification or did then. 

Q. And as a matter of fact you never chose more than one from one 
certification ? — A. Well, willyou allow me to answer the question, please. 
The rule allows that, but Shidy preferred always to have a separate cer- 
tification, and sometimes, possibly in one or two cases (I doubt whether 
it ever occurred at all), where the names appeared on the first certifi- 
cation, if the man marked the highest would be higher than any subse- 
quent names that came up I would suggest that man for the place. I 
did not consider that 

Q. You would suggest that man for the place. Do you mean you 
would appoint him and then have the certification made for him ? — A. 
Get his nomioation ready. 

Q. I shall only keep you a very few moments longer. The question 
was: 'iYou necessarily know all of the candidates before they are ex- 
amined!" You answered : " Not in the sense of knowing anything about 
them and their personal history, relations or opinions upon any subject. 
I purposely avoid knowing anything until after the examination, until 
such a time that circumstances make it probable they are to be eligible 
for appointment soon." — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ''I then make personal investigation somewhat as to their charac- 
ter and duties." — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, what do you mean by that 1 How did you know " that cir- 
cumstances make it probable that they are to be eligible for appoint- 
ment soon ? — A. Simply being on the eligible list that is referred to. 
If you want to know how I know every single man who is examined and 
on the eligible list I might 

Q. You misunderstand my question. Your answer was : I purposely 
avoid knowing anything until after the examination, until such a time 
that circumstances make it probable that they are to be eligible tor ap- 
pointment soon." — A. Yes, sir ; that is i:)erfectly correct. 

Q. How did you know " that circumstances would make it probable 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 27o 

that they are to be eligible for appointment soon?" — A. Well, our lists 
were generally pretty short, and the applicants would immediately ap- 
ply to me for places, and I, being informed as to the number that had 
been examined (that was no secret), generally knew what would be 
wanted pretty soon. For instance, you take the case of the sixteen 
carriers who were appointed at one time. I knew very well from the 
length of the list that the old list had nearly expired, and Shidy had 
told me so. 

Q. Shidy told you what ? That the old list had nearly expired and 
was not sufficient. — A. I would know very well about that. You could 
not tail knowing about it. 

Q. So that you knew a good deal before you made the appointment ? — 
A. Only what I got from the list. 

Q. But you did not get information from other channels ? — A. No, 
sir. 

Q. You say in refereaice to the letter about certifications froni the 
higher to the lower grade : "I can not see any conditions except that they 
should be transferred on the list in their order according to average, and 
providing their grade was sufficient ^to entitle them to compete in the 
lower grade." That was your understanding? — A. That was my un- 
derstanding. 

Q. That they should be transferred according to average ?— A. Ac- 
cording to average. 

Q. According to their standing ? — A. 1 do not wish any misunder- 
standing about that. I presume there is none. The application for 
transfer for lower places when there were more than one under consid- 
eiation, or any number of such applications, my idea was that they 
should be transferred — that is, reported to me for selection on the cer- 
tification according to their standing or their mark — that is, the highest 
mark should come first in the certification. 

Q. You would think it an injustice, for instance, if there were four 
carriers willing to be transferred, to transfer the lower mark first and 
certify that up to you before you certified other higher ones? — A. Oh, 
it might frequently occur that the one marked lowest would make his 
request first. 

Q. I put this case, that if four were willing to be transferred, all of 
them of equal height, you would think it an injustice to transfer the 
lowest one of those four first and have him appointed before the other 
three had a chance ? — A. Yes, sir; that certainly would be an injustice. 
I never knew that to occur. 

Q. It happened in the Keaveney case. — A. I doubt it very much. I 
do uot think it did. 

Q. Well, now, when you made that, when you had shifted a man, 
would you certify a lower carrier above a high-grade stamper 1 Do you 
think that that would be the proper way to make certifications ? Do 
you see the point I am getting at ? If they certified a man who was 
low on a higher grade above a man who had a high average on a lower 
grade, now would you think it right to certify him np above those lower 
grade men with high averages ? — A. Well, sir, that is simply asking 
loe my opinion as to that. It is true it Avas not for me to determine 
anything in any way, and I never did determine that question in anj^ 
way, I can give you my opinion about it. 

Q. You never did determine it ? Would you not think it unfair if 
you should see on a certification a carrier of 72 with a stamper of 91 
certified for the ijosition of stamper ? — A. I know the practice of the 

secretary — that is, I think I do. The practice of the secretary 

3117-^ — 18 



274 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. I do uot care about the practice of the secretary. I ouly ask if 
you knew? — A. It relates practically to that point, and it was incon- 
sistent with itself. 

Q. The practice of the secretary was inconsistent with itself? — A. 
Yes, sir ; according to this information ; but my 

Q. And you knew at the time that it was inconsistent with itself? — 
A. Well, I understood, sir, from him that it was inconsistent. 

Q. Inconsistent with itself? — A. I remember remarking to him that 
I thought he ought to be very careful and follow the rule. 

Q. Did you state you knew at the time of the practice of the secre- 
tary in making these transfers that he was inconsistent with himself? 
Did you ever protest any way against that practice ? — A. Certainly. 

Q. You did ? — A. I did make a remark to him once — a pretty sharp 
remark — that he should follow one rule or another. 

Q. Then you knew that you were making appointments upon his 
certifications when he was now following one rule and then following 
another ? — A. ISTo, sir ; I do not think that is so. 

Q. Why, did you just say so, sir — what do you mean, then?— A. 
Well, sir, i think he said to me once that he had not always the same 
rule in making transfers as to standing. If you will allow me to state 
wbere the difference is I think we will make the whole matter clear. 

Q. Would it not be better A. I give this as an impression. Of 

course this is the construction of the secretary's duty. My impression 
was at the time— when he made transfers during the early days of my 
administration that he transferred a man from a clerk's or carrier's list 
with the same marking without any change, that subsequently he 
changed the marks to correspond with the standing iu the lower de- 
gree, increasing the marks 

Q. What did he do ? Did you know he did that ? — A. I only know 
that from Shidy himself. 

Q. When did he tell you that? — A. Well, I can not give the date at 
all. 

Q. Before this investigation? — A. Before the investigation. 

Q. You knew from Mr. Shidy's own statement that he would change 
the marks of eligibles on the register in shifting them from one list to 
another to be certified to you. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Let me see whether I understand you correctly. Where he would 
certify a letter-carrier for the position of stamper, it being a higher exam ■ 
ination, he would mark up an average obtained by the candidate for the 
carrier's position ? — A. I think originally he followed the other rule, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Q. Well, I know. But did I understand you aright ? — A. You seethe 
examination for a messenger or stamper is very different. 

Q. Certainly. It is a lower grade. — A. Than the one above. 

Q. ISTow, suppose he sent in four names for stamper and three of them 
had passed the stamper's examination. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Received 80, 75, or 70 per cent. Suppose the party who had been 
certified on this list as a stamper had passed an examination say at 70 
per cent, as letter carrier. He would mark him up to make up the 
difference in the degree of the examination. — A. He would mark 

Q. How much would he mark him ? — A. I do not mean that he would 
mark him just according to his notion or anything of that kind. I mean 
simply that he would take the studies or papers that covered the ground 
of a stamper and adopt that mark instead of the mark 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 275 

Q. Is there any such rale made by the CommissioD to say what per- 
centage would be allowed in these different grades ! — A. Well, sir, when 
he mentioned that matter to me my impression is that he said perhaps 
he had been doing wrong or doing injustice to those who accepted those 
lower positions — not a large number of them — and my remark to him 
was that he must not be guilty of any irregularity, and if he had any 
doubt about it he should ask the Commission. I always requested 
him to consult the Commission and not to have two systems of marking 
That that would not answer. I think I talked to him about it in that 
way. 

Q. Was that when the certification was made for a letter-carrier or 
as a stamper I Would he appear when the list came to you on a 
higher average than he actually did obtain as a letter-carrier ? 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q, You knew of that. — A. I never knew of it. 

Q. That was actually the case, was it not ? — A. I only knew from a 
single conversation, and in that conversation I almost instructed — I cer- 
tainly advised him very strongly — to consult the Commission and settle 
upon a rule. I did not investigate the right or wrong of the rules. 

By Mr. Andrew : 

Q. What they would do was to mark up a letter-carrier when he was 
certified as a stamper? — A. It was not a question of advantage any 
way. It was a question of right or wrong. It did not change the 
marking very much, you understand. 

Q. Could not the letter-carrier get into the certification of a stamper 
unless these changes were' made in the marking f Was not that the 
object ? — A. This is simply a question of knowledge. 

The Chairman. Knowledge. Was there any other object than to 
give the man knowledge of his certification ? — A. Ko, sir; it was simply 
on what terms this transfer should be made, what transfer ought to be 
made, and what standing he would occupy as a stamper. 

The Chairman. I think I understand. 

Mr. Andrew. Well, 1 do not. I am satisfied of what the witness in- 
tends to say. A man is examined as a carrier, he stands low on the 
list and there are others higher than he is; but he is willing to take a 
position as stamper. 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He is certified to you, and in order to close the dif- 
ference between the course of examination he is marked up in his cer- 
tification to you or has been. — A. Yes, sir, he is marked on this princi- 
ple—marked on the studies — on the class of questions. 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

The Witness. It relates to the stamper. Those are included in his 
examination, as I understand it, as a carrier. 

Mr. Andrew. That part is clear enough ; but that has nothing to do 
with what I asked. 

Mr. Roosevelt. What possible authority could there have been to 
do that ? — A. I never had anything to do with it. 

By Mr. Andrew : 
Q. What I wanted to get at, simply for the purpose of information, is 
this : What was the object in making that change in the marking? Sup- 
pose he had only gotten as a letter-carrier the average of 50, why did 
you put him on the other force ? What was the object of it i~A. 
Because he possessed more extensive qualifications for the requirements 
of a stamper than he would for a carrier. 



276 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. What was the object in changing the mark when you put him on 
the list 'f—A. Well, you are asking me now to say what reasons gov- 
erned Shidy. 

Q. So ; what would be anybody's reason for it? 

The Chairman. What would the object be, Mr. Paul, to enable the 
Commission to certify him at all to you ? — A. It would be no wrong. 
There is none on the part of Shidy. 

Mr. Roosevelt. Could not it be 

Mr. Andrew. I asked what was the reason? — A. I am answering 
the question. 

Mr. Roosevelt. If a carrier passed at 72 and there were stampers 
on the list at 80, then if you transfer a carrier to the stampers' list at 
72 he could not be certified unless you raised his mark? — A. I can not 
understand the question. 

Q. You say here " when a higher grade eligible has expressed a will- 
ingness to accept a lower place I have told the secretary, with request, 
that under the ruling of the Commission of September 18, 1885, he 
would include such person in his next certification to me for the lower 
position if entitled to transfer." Now, did you not very distinctly state 
that you would tell the secretary to include a given higher grade eligi- 
ble in his next certification to you for the low position ? Bid you or 
did you not 1 — A. Well, sir, I shall have to answer that by stating the 
precise facts. Generally, the applications for transfer from a higher to 
Oil lower grade, or sometimes only one and no more, and sometimes 
others, and sometimes there might be two or three, but rarely more 
than one at a time. Now if, for instance, a clerk or a carrier should 
apply for transfer to the secretary or to myself, or through myself to 
the secretary, and the list was short in that case, as a matter of course 
he would go into the next certification. I do not know that I have ever 
made that remark. I think I did not. 

Q. What remark is that ?— A. What did it state ? 

Q. Well, here you state when a higher grade eligible has expressed 
his willingness to accept a lower place I have told the secretary, with 
request, that under the ruling of the Commission of September 18, 1885, 
that he would include such person in his next certification to me lor the 
lower position if entitled to transfer." — A. Yes, sir. The reference was 
to a case where it would become lawfully in the next certification ; but 
not otherwise. 

Q. How could you know it would come lawfully in the next certifica- 
tion 1 — A. I could know that in many cases that he would be the only 
person to come in the next certification. 

Q. You did not make any such qualification as that in your state- 
ment. — A. How? 

Q. You did not make any such qualification as that in your state- 
ment. You expressed it as a general fact. — 'A. Oh, no ; not as a general 
fact. 

Q. Well, here it is.— A. I did not intend it as such. What lintended 
was to cover all possibilities. One case I remember 

Q. If you did not know the list of eligibles how could you know 
what would come up the next time ? — A. I did know the man who 
was transferred, and made the request. 

Q. Y^on did know what? — A. I would know when a man made appli- 
cation for the transfer. He came to me 

Q. l^ou would know his standing? — A. No, sir; I did not say that 
at all; but I would know this, Mr. Koosevelt, that if John Jones came 
to me and asked to be transferred from the clerks' list, and the stamp- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 277 

ers' list were exbausted, that he would be certified the next time. As 
a matter of course I kuew that, and would give instructions to that 
eflect. 

Q, Well, you again make the statement here : " If in the case of any 
proper person with whose character and capacity I had become familiar 
a desire had been voluntarily expressed to me to accept any position 
in the service lower than that for which he had been examined, I would 
then request the secretary to include the name of such person in the 
certification for the place to be filled." You do not say a word about 
exhausting the list of eligibles or anything of that kind. — A. I think 
it referred to some other cases. 

Q. Well, you do not say it refers to a particular case; you make it 
as a general statement. — A. If I did, that was my meaning very 
plainly. I stated it as a fact, it was not a rule at all. 



March 6, 1890. 
EXAMINATION OF MR. PAUL— Continued. 

, By Mr. Eoosevblt : 

Q. These certificates from No. 54 to 60, inclusive, show that by shift- 
ing one eligible from one list to another and certifying him out of order, 
to the detriment of those above him, half a dozen eligibles who were en- 
titled to appointment by their standing were certified out of official ex- 
istence ; and that half a dozen men not entitled to appointment by their 
standing, and who under a proper certification could not have beeo ap- 
pointed, were appointed. In each case, however, you chose the partic- 
ular man for whom the certification was cooked. 

The Witness. Only one man. 

Q. Have you any explanation to give how it happened that in each 
one of these " cooked " certifications you chose the man for whom it was 
cooked, while the men entitled to the certification were certified out of 
existence, and only men improperly certified were chosen ? — A, I think 
I have sui3iciently covered such a question by many answers. I said 
that in every case I accepted the certification of the board and made my 
selection from it. There was where my official existence under the law 
begins and ends. I have my presumption on the subject as to how it 
happened. I do not remember what explanation I may have made two 
years ago, but I have my theory of how that was done. 

The Chairman. State that theory. 

A. But I do not wish to be held responsible for that theory, nor do I 
know I am absolutely correct. It is simply theory, and I give it as a 
theory. That would be that the secretary transfers a certain number 
of men from a higher to a lower list. Is not that the case, Mr. Eoose- 
velt? 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q. You are not answering my question at all. — A. I do not know 
what the point is for me to answer. 

Q. My question is specifically if you had any explanation to give how 
it happened that you choose each particular man on these six certifica- 
tions and chose the men ajiparently for whom the certifications were 
" cooked." — A. I chose the men I considered the first on the three certifi- 
cations in each case. 



278 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. You see the poiut I am trying to get at. You say these certifica- 
tions are garbled. Each one is cooked for the benefit of one man. 
That would require the aid of two parties, the party making the certi- 
fications and the man choosing. How is it, or have you any explana- 
tion to make "of the fact that in choosing from these certifications 
you invariably chose the man for whom the certifications had beeu 
cooked ; could you possibly have done so accidentally in every one of 
the cases'?" — A. When you say certain names are "cooked"! do not 
think you refer to my testimony. 

Q. I have submitted the record. — A. It is a mere assumption. 

Q. Will you look at these certifications i!^os. 54 to 60 and say if you 
think they are proper? — A. (After examining the certiflcatious.) Ou 
the face of the record as you exhibit those certifications they are cer- 
tainly improper. 

Q. On the face of the record? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You chose them all, at least as it appears by this they "were made 
to you in the record book on one day, so that they were all before you 
at once. — A. The certifications were never all made to me at the same 
time. 

Q. This official record was before you on the 18th of February, on 
which date you wrote your name opposite each appointee, signifying 
the choice of the man, so that the record of that was before you on Feb- 
ruary 18. — A. I do not think it was. 

Q. How did you happen to write your name? — A. Whenever the 
secretary presented it I wrote my name opposite the name of the ap- 
pointee. 

Q. Did you look at the date? Each certification is dated, from No. 
55 to 60, February 18, 1888, and did you look at that date when you 
wrote your name ? — A. I have already testified to this committee that 
the blanks of the Commission require no date at all. I did not look at 
the dates. It was not my duty to do it. 

Q. You didn't look at that record at all ? — A. Never, in any particu- 
lar way. The secretary brought the record to me with a designation 
of the name, and I signed my name opposite the name of the selection. 

Q. Have you never looked over this official record containing these 
six certifications and never examined them? — A. With reference to 
the practice ? No, sir; my presumption is I did not. I do not recollect. 

Q. Then what did you mean by saying in your letter of May 30, 1888, 
to Mr. Oberly, then president of the Commission, referring to these 
very certifications in reference to Cumming, "Eeferring to the record 
for verification, permit me to state," etc.? — A. What record? My own 
record or the record of the Board ? 

Q. "Keferring to the record of Charles Cumming, permit me to say 
he was not examined as a letter-carrier. As the stamper list was ex- 
hausted his name was used," etc. What record did you mean ? — A. I 
can not say. I may have referred to either. 

Q. What is either? — A. If I had taken action I would have referred 
to the record of the Commission, and if I had not, I would have referred 
to my own record. My recollection is that that letter was written ou 
information from Shidy, in some shape. 

Q. When you say " referring to the records for verification," you re- 
ferred to what Shidy told you about the record ? — A. I should think 
so. It may be so. It was supposed that the Commission itself had the 
record. It is a very singular fact that if the Commission had that rec- 
ord in its j)ossession a year or more that my attention was never called 
after that to my letter referring to these same names. 

Q. It was followed in June by the visit of Doyle. Doyle went out 
to the post-office. — A. The fact is, I suppose, that all these records were 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 279 

in the hands of the Commission, and if they showed anything improper 
in the certifications that impropriety should have been investigated. 

Q. What records were in the hands of the Commission "? — A. Re- 
ports from the local board should have been. 

Q. As a matter of fact it was that record that led to the investiga- 
tion ?— A. Yes, sir. I am very glad to know that. 

Q. You have no further explanation to give as to saying that you re- 
ferred to the record for verification. When you told the Commission 
that you made these statements referring to the record for verification, 
did you mean that you had referred to the record ? — A. No, sir ; I did 
not necessarily. I do not think I ever saw the record. 

Q. What did you mean when you wrote that °? — A. It is impossible 
to tell the precise fact. I referred to a record for verification. If the 
secretary of the local board said the records were so and so, in a letter 
to the Commission, I would have asked them to refer to the record. I 
do not see anything involved in that. 

Q. You said you referred to the record. You did not ask them to re- 
fer to the record at all. — A. I wrote a good many letters. I used most 
any kind of Ian guage that would cover the case. 

Q. You used most any kind of language to cover the point ? — A. To 
cover the point. 

Q. You say these seven certifications are evidently improper ? — A. I 
said that with this qualification — "as they appear upon your testi- 
mony." 

Q. As they appear in the analytical statement ? — A. As they appear 
in this statement. 

Q. Do you think they are correct ? — A. I do not think the certifica- 
tions would be correct. I do not wish to hold myself responsible for 
that fact. 

Q. I only ask you to state if those certifications which appear by 
the record you signed on a given day were in your opinion improper? — 
A. Were they all signed by me on a" given day? 

Q. I say, as it appears by the record, you signed all those seven cer- 
tifications on February 18, 1888. — A. There must be some mistake 
about that. According to my statement of the facts which I have in 
my hand, no such number is dated in this statement. 

Q. What are the dates in that statement ? — A. The case of Keaveny 
here appears to have been entered by the secretary of the Board and 
stricken out. This is ]^o. 55. Again at No. 54 appears the same ex- 
planation. I think it is all frivolous. 

Q. All I ask is if this record or analytical statement is correct. All 
of these are dated on one day, February 18, and to all of them the post- 
master has signed his name opposite that of the appointee. — A. I want 
to make one explanation. The facts as presented by him (referring to 
Mr. Eoosevelt) do not conform with my memorandum of the names 
opposite. 

Q. You can contradict my facts. — A. I have already covered the tes- 
timony showing the facts stated, but the statement of Mr. Roosevelt is 
not in accordance with the facts. Mr. Keaveny was entered upon the 
record a long time after his real appointment and then crossed out. 
Keaveny was entered again in order to get my signature, and I did sign 
it. That was January 20 and it was crossed out for February 18. He 
made this notation: "Appointed December 8, 1887." There are two 
instances. Keaveny had been appointed and these are two of the cases 
to which Mr. Roosevelt refers as being of the six. 

Q. Did I understand you correctly to state here the other day that 



280 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

you regarded Shidy as slovenly and careless and a man wlio did not 
mean to do anything wrong? — A. I undertook to say the other day 
that I thought that Shidy in the duties of the Civil Service Commission 
was slovenly, careless, and dilatory ; that I did not think he intended — 
I state it for the benefit of Shidy, if you please — that Shidy ordinarily 
was a pretty fair man ; that Shidy as a representative of the Civil Serv- 
ice Commission was a man who continually complained that that duty 
was imposed upon him without pay, and that he was slovenly and dila- 
tory, as I have ascertained since that time in taking care of his records. 

Q. You do not think he did anything wrong ? — A. I did not think so 
up to the time he appeared before the Commission in the post-oifice, or 
about that time. I do not know what I stated to Major Webster, but at 
that time I never saw or heard any intention on his part to do wrong. 
I think he is simply a weak man who was actually intimidated by the 
Commission in his exBjmination because of his previous errors. 

Q. Intimidated by myself and Governor Thompson I — A. He was 
made to believe that if those errors appeared as his own, and he was 
responsible for them, he would lose his place. 

Q. You say he was a timid, weak man, and was intimidated by Mr. 
Lyman, Governor Thompson, and myself? — A. That is his statement. 

Q. It could not have been retroactive, could it ? We examined him 
in June, 1889, and we could not have intimidated him into making a 
statement in June, 1888? — A. He was in constant fear of the Commis- 
sion. 

Q. His statement was made in August, 1888, to Mr. Webster and 
Mr. Doyle. It would have been difficult for us to have intimidated him 
several months before we ever saw him.— A. I think he had an insane 
desire to please the Commission and at the same time he was intimi- 
dated. 

Q. Mr. Shidy never coerced you in any way ? He did not force you 
to choose any particular man from a certification such as appears to be 
improper ? — A. I wish to explain that, if you will allow me. I regarded 
the local board as a proper portion of the Commission. I perhaps placed 
too much confidence in them as the representatives of the Commission. 
That is the onl}- fault I can think of. There was no intimidation, as a 
matter of course ; but if the examining board should present to me 
certifications and records, I would regard it as a compliance with the 
spirit of the law and I would raise no question nor go back into an in- 
vestigation about the propriety of the action of the board. I accepted 
fully anything they did. 

Q. You accepted fully what they did ?— A. In the line of duty. / 

Mr. BoATNER. You considered them the civil service commission in; 

Milwaukee ?— A. Yes, sir. ' 

' 1 

By Mr. EoosEVELT : \ 

Q. Take, for instance, the certifications you have examined to-day 
and you say they appear to be improper. Did Shidy force you to take 
any given man from any one of those certifications ?— A. No, sir. He 
did not force me in the discharge of my duty. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. I would like to submit in evidence the report of the 
certifications. It covers seven cases. It does not show what grade 
these different men are from, and we of course would be unable to tell 
uuless by examining them. The point is this : " We certify to the cor- 
rectness of the report." It is signed by Jacksou, Shidy, and Fahsel. 
This conclusively proves that Johnson and Fahsel were' equally guilty 
^\ ith Shidy as far as these certifications are concerned. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 281 

The Witness. Let me look at that [taking the paper]. 
By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. There are four certifications here signed by ;voii on the 18th of 
February, among whom is the name of Thomas F. Keaveny. It seems 
from the testimony in the case that Keaveny was really appointed to 
the position of stamper in December. — A. I think so. 

Q. I think he was promoted to the position of carrier on the 1st of 
February following, and that his certification to you does not appear 
until the 18th of February, at which time you signed for it. I under- 
stand from the testimony that Keaveny was really certified to you in 
December prior to his appointment by one of these slips, samples of 
which you gave ? — A. I think that is the fact. 

Q. And that having appointed him as a stamper you considered him 
as subject to promotion on the 1st of February. — A. I did not consider 
him subject to promotion. The board recommended him for promotion. 
I took their opinion on that point. 

Q. What I want to know is this : Was this individual a favorite of 
yours, or was his appointment due to political influence or to any other 
influence than should have prevailed "? — A. Those are precisely the cir- 
cumstances. I never saw Thomas F. Keaveny at all until he appeared 
in the certification, and then I had not seen him. Judge Jenkins, of the 
United States district court, stepped down to my office from the court- 
room — I forget whether it was before or after the certification, but about 
the time of the certification — and spoke to me about a man whom he un- 
derstood had passed an examination, as he explained it, and desired 
me to consider his case when the name came up for consideration. When 
the certification did come, of course I remembered what Judge Jenkins 
had said, but I never knew Keaveny personally until the cerfciflcation, 
and then I called him before me to see what kind of a man he was. He 
was certified, I think, originally as a stamper. I think so. I remember 
him. He was rather a large man for the place, but Judge Jenkins told 
me he was a capable, intelligent, reliable man, and I appointed him to 
the position. There was no favoritism about it. I did not know him 
or his friends. 

Q. As to either one of these who were signed for on the 18th of Feb- 
ruary, was there any political or personal motive which dictated the 
appointment of these people ? — A. The names appointed, according to 
my memorandum — I answer it specifically, for if every one of those 
would meet me in the street I would not know them from Adam. I 
never saw him. 

Q. I do not think that is a full answer. — A. I do not know to-day and 
never did know what their political ideas are. 

Q. Can you state whether or not you considered at the time of ap- 
pointing these men you were appointing them in violation of the civil- 
service rules, at the suggestion of some one, or because of some favor- 
itism ? — A. There was no favoritism. I never aj)pointed a man on that 
account. I do not care what the record shows. 

Q. Please state whether or not in any of these appointments which 
have been referred to by the Commission you acted knowingly in viola- 
tion of the civil-service rules. — A. No, sir. 

Q. Now, it was stated by Mr. Shidy that you required him to send 
up the certifications of people whom you wanted, and you required him 
to mark down other people in order that he could send up these. Please 
state whether or not in any instance within yopr recollection you did 
require him or any member of the board to send certifications which 
contained the names of any particular individual. — A. No, sir. 



282 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Pleiiase state whetlier or not you ever made an appointment with- 
out a previous certification from the board. — A, ISTo, sir ; never. 

Q. Please state whether or not, having made an appointment, you re- 
quired the certification to be furnished afterwards to cover the name of 
the person whom you apiDointed. — A, At the hour when apjjointed ? No, 
sir. 

Q. State if, having appointed a man without certification, you after- 
wards required a certification to cover the ca«e. — A. I will answer that 
in the negative ; but I ought to explain that I said in my testimony in 
1888 that when I was hurried and Shidy was slow I might have said to 
him to bring me the names of some oi\e whom the board might select, 
and I would tell him to make out a slip and bring it to me quick. 

Q. You mean you appointed the man and told him to bring in the 
certification afterwards f — A. Bring in the names. 

Q. When you did that, would you know the man you appointed in 
advance was on the list properly 1 — A. Only as Shidy may have made 
the remark. He may have said the first three are so and so. 

Q, Did you In any case appoint any three men in advance ? — A. No, 
sir. 

Q. With respect to these dates the books show these people were ap- 
pointed and signed for February 18. Do I understand you to say that 
you signed the book as it was brought to you by Shidy without paying 
attention to the date f — A. I have no recollection of paying attention 
to the date^ because 

Q. Are you aware and did you consider that it was essential under 
the civil-service rules that you should sign the book in advance for ap- 
pointments; or that you signed the book after the appointment, provided 
the party was certified to before the appointment f — A. The secretary 
always stated to me before that those were reported every month, and 
that his habit was to report them each month. 

Q. Then you considered it necessary for appointment ? — A. We un- 
derstood the slip to be a certification. 

Q. What did you consider the object was in signing the book? — A. 
To complete the record of the certification and api)ointment. 

Q. For what purpose was the record to be comi)leted f — A. They keep 
a record and certification of the appointmrnt, and a copy was forwarded 
to Washington. 

Q. I understood you to say that Shidy made a report and brought 
the book to you. What connection did Shidy's having to make a report 
have with your signing the book? — A. The board is required to keep a 
record with the signature of the postmaster. 

Q. What connection did it have with the questions ? — A. I do not 
know as I understand you. 

Q. I understood your testimony to be the other day this : That Shidy 
would furnish you a certification on slips of paper, samples of which you 
showed, and that afterwards when he would make his report he would 
give you the letter and the book to sign. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then you say you did not sigu the book for the purpose of ena- 
bling him to make his report? —A. It was for both purposes. 

By Mr. Geeenhalge (in the chair). 

Q. I understand from the testimony the apiDointment of Keaveny 
was actually made in December ? — A. December 8. He has a sworn 
affidavit to that effect. 

Q. The appointment was actually made in December. Now you rep- 
resent that that appointment was regnhxr and m accordance with the 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



283 



rules of the Civil Service Commission. — A. According to the construc- 
tion placed upon those rules in our office at that time. 

Q. The appointment, then, depended upon the certification by Lhe 
board, did it not ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now I wish to ask you whether there has been or can be i^roduced 
any record evidence, either by copy or book, or certification, or of any 
other kind, showing the certification of Keaveny prior to the appoint- 
ment when you say the appointment was actually made ? — A. The only 
record that I know is Shidy's own record. 

Q. And that appears of date February 18 "? — A. And his memoran- 
dum under the head " Remarks." On that record, as Johnson informs 
me, appears this statement in his own handwriting. 

Q. What does it show ? — A. " Appointed stamper December 8, 1887." 

Q. Is there anything showing the certification ?— A. No, sir ; it was 
simply 

Q. They do not appoint, of course. The board does not make the 
appointment. — A. It is a record of the certification and appointment. 

Q. Is there anything showing a record of the certification prior to 
February 18 ? — A. No, sir ; nothing but the necessary fact that a certi- 
fication must precede selection. I have my recollection of the fact. 

Q. I am asking you now as to what record was made in the case, and 
whether all the records have been produced that can be, so far as you 
know. — A. So far as I know, except my letter to the Department. I 
think all the appointments to the Department of persons in the classi- 
fied service, or persons not exempt from examination, contain a state- 
ment to the effect that they have duly passed and been reported for 
appointment. 

Q. What date was your letter to the Department, and has that ueen 
put in evidence here ? — A. That is an official letter in the possesion of 
the present postmaster. 

Q. Has any mention been made of it, or has a copy been produced in 
this hearing "? Do you know the date of that letter ? — A. I think I could 
find it if I had time. 

Q. At a subsequent meeting, produce a copy of that letter, if you 
can. — A. I will. 

Q. I mean a copy of the letter to the Department containing a state- 
ment as to the appointment of Keaveny ; it is a public letter. 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. I understand you to say 

The Witness (interposing). I wish to know if all the Civil Service 
Commissioners are going to be put against me. I think it is rather un- 
fair — fifteen to one. I wish they would select some one man to exaai- 
ine me. 

Q. I understood you to say in your examination day before yesterday 
that you were quite as familiar with the rules of the civil service as the 
Commission were. That may be so, for I do not claim to know them all 
myself. — A. In their practical application to my office. I do not wish 
to claim anything else. 

Q. What course did you take to inform yourself as to the rules when 
you became postmaster ? — A. I took the rules home and read them all 
night. 

Q. Did you make appointments in any case at any one's suggestion ? 
Are you responsible for all your appointments ? — A. I am responsible. 

Q. You say some five or six were irregular "? — A. Apparently ir- 
regular. 



284 CIVIL SEE VICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. If those were made to you as tliey now appear, how is it possible 
for you not to know that they were irregular ? — A. Is there a rule which 
would require me to examine certifications and know whether they are 
irregular or not °? 

Q. If you are familiar with the rules, how is it possible for you not 
to know that they were irregular? — A. If you ask me how it is possible 
to know 

Q. It is indifferent to me how you answer the question. — A. It is in- 
different to me. I will say, whatever the rules may be, I have not un- 
derstood that they required me to supervise any certifications of the 
local board. I have never undertaken to do so. 

Q. Did you ever regard your signature as a part of the record ? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. You admitted that you repeatedly failed to make that signature 
when you made appointments ? — A. I have made that signature when 
the secretary of the board brought me the record to sign. 

Q. You did not complete the record at the time ? — A. I did not keep 
track of the business any further. 

Q. You think that Shidy was slovenly in keeping these papers, and 
that was the cause of your not signing them at the right time ? — A. I 
think so. 

Q. Did you ever rejDort him to the Civil Service Commission as slov- 
enly? — A. No, sir; I did not know it until after the Commission was 
there. 

Q. You knew these certifications were on scraps of paper ? — A. I said 
the other day that this was the general practice in the office. 

Q, On slips of paper ? — A. I think so. It is the common practice of 
the postmaster. 

Q. Did you ever write letters to the Postmaster-Greneral about this 
man Cumming 1 — A. Yes, sir ; I think I did. 

Mr. Thompson. We have asked the Post-Office Department to send 
us the correspondence on that subject. 

Q. When did 3 ou resign ? — A. I resigned on the 8th of March, 1889, 
by a verbal arrangement which I have explained. 

Q. Did you resign to the Postmaster-General, or the President ? 

By Mr. Greenhalgb : 

Q. (Interposing.) Was it a resignation to take effect at some future 
time? — A. Not the original resignation. 

Q. The question is as to the time of the resignation, not the nature 
of it. — A, That requires some explanation as to when I resigned. As 
I say, by the original resignation I resigned in March, 1889, and re- 
quested the Representative from my district to send in the appointment 
of my successor, and that he agreed to it and was engaged in selecting 
him and in looking up the matter. I gave him to understand tliat the 
quicker it was done the better it would suit me. He being rather slow 
about it, I subsequently wrote my resignation of the place, which was 
in his possession before, and this was before the visit of the Commis- 
sion considerable time. - 

By Mr. Thompson : 

Q. In whose possession ? — A. The Eepresentative. 

Q. What I want to get at about the resignation is whether it was 
sent to the President or the Postmaster-General ? — A. My resignation 
was addressed to the President. 

Q. Was it delivered to your Representative in Congress? — A. No, 
sir ; not my last resignation. I resigned three times. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 285 

Q. When was your final resignation — the one that was accepted ? — A. 
The Eepresentative in Congress brought back my manuscript resigna- 
tion after the Commission visited there. My first manuscript resigna- 
tion addressed to the President was returned to me by the Eepresenta- 
tive in Congress immediately after the visit of the Commission, on the 
ground that they had done me a manifest injustice by misapprehension 
and he wished me to have an opportunity of defense before I left the 
office. 

By Mr. Greenhalge : 

Q. You did not resign that time ? — A. I was prevented. 

Q. E"ow as to the second resignation. — A. That is the second. The 
third was addressed to the President of the United States ; and he in- 
formed me I think originally, I can not say positively, through Mr. Hal- 
ford, his private secretary, that my resignation would be accepted. 

Q. What date was that 1 — A. Immediately after the decision of the 
President. I then sent it to the Postmaster-General, but I can not re- 
member the date. 

By Mr. Thompson : 
Q. Did you not state in the newspapers, notably the New York Star, 
at the time the investigation was talked about that you hoped there 
would be a full and fair investigation before a tribunal whose decision 
would not be questioned ? Did you ever see this published letter of 
yours in reference to an investigation, and you hoped it would be fair, 
impartial, etc. ? — A. I think so. 

Q. When it was intimated that your resignation would be accepted, 
you were then under a cloud ? — A. No, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. I will introduce at this point a letter from the Post- 
Office Department. 

Office of the Postmaster-Generax, 

Washington, D. C, August 3, 1889. 
Sir : Your letter of July 29, tendering your resignation of the office of postmaster 
at Milwaukee, Wis., has been received. Before its receipt the Civil Service Com- 
mission had submitted a report of an examination of your office, upon which I should 
have taken action before this but for your request for delay in order that you might 
submit a statement in your own behalf. After the examination by the Civil Service 
Commission, a post-office inspector was sent to examine your office, and his report 
has also been submitted to me. Upon these reports your removal from office has been 
determined upon, but, as pending action upon them, you have offered your resigna- 
tion. I will accept it to take eifectupon the appointment and[qualii3 cation of a suc- 
cessor, who will be designated as soon as possible. 
Very respectfully, yours, 

Jno. Wanamaker, 

Postmaster-General. 
George H. Paul, Esq., 

Milivaukee, Wis. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q. I would like to ask one question : Do you recollect in whose 
handwriting the certifications were that were submitted to you ? — A.. I 
can not tell ; I know the handwriting. This is in the handwriting of 
the secretary of the local board. 

Q. Do you know whether those were the certifications submitted to 
you [handing the witness a paper] ? — A. I believe they were. 

Q. Did you ever have submitted to you certifications of this char- 
acter? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have had certifications similar in most respects to these sub- 
mitted to you ? — A. Not frequently ; once or twice. The certifications 
gave me the standing of the applicant. In both cases I informed the 



286 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

secretary that although. I did not consider it my business, it was my 
opinion that they were illegally there. 

Q. IsTot '' frequently, but once or twice." Do I understand you that 
certifications of this character were submitted to you ? — A. According 
to my memory, 

Mr. EoosEVELT. I offer that in evidence. It shows the arrangement 
and the adjustment by which certain men were brought into line. 

Mr. Greenhalge (in the chair). This is an original paper, and it 
has not gone in before ? 

Mr. Roosevelt. It is. 

The Witness. I wish to say that I have never brought anybody into 
line, nor do I care to. 



Friday, March 7, 1890. 
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE H. PAUL— Continued. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Mr. Paul, you were appointed June 1, 1885, and retired from office 
September 27, 1889 "? — A. I took the position at that time, June 1. I 
was appointed some time before. 

Q. You went out in 1889?— A. September 27, 1889? 

Q. Who was your predecessor? — A. Henry T. Payne. 

Q. Was he a Republican ? — A. By common report ; yes, sir. 

Q. The office had been subject to civil-service regulations for some 
years before your incumbency ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you entered the office, what number of people were then 
employed therein in all grades ? — A. I wish to say as to these statistics, 
some of which I did not have before, have been prepared with some little 
hurry, bu-t mostly they are data furnished me from the Department on 
yesterday. 

The Chairman. Can you answer the question, how many? 

The Witness. And according to that information I give these statis- 
tics, which I believe to be correct. The number of employes of all grades, 
June 1, 1885, were ninety- four. 

The Chairman. That is, letter carriers and all ? 

Mr. Stone. Of all grades. Of that number, how many were in the 
classified service and subject to be examined before appointment? — A. 
The number requiring civil-service examination was sixty-nine, as I 
have it. 

Q. Of the total force of ninety-four, how many were in the excepted 
places or places below the civil service ; that is, how many in the un- 
classified service ? — A. Twenty-five. 

Q. Can you state accurately or approximately how many of the ninety- 
four people you found in the office were Democrats and how many were 
Republicans ? — A. Well, sir, I can only give the general opinion, which 
was the public opinion, which I never heard contradicted, and never 
knew any reason to change my supposition on the subject; that there 
were eighty-seven adults, that is, voters, in that office when I went in, 
all of whom were understood to be, and always have been understood 
to be. Republicans. There were six minors and one or two women. 

Q. When you retired from the office in September, 1889, what was the 
total number of jieople then employed therein in all grades ? — A. One 
hundred and forty-five. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 287 

Q. Of that number liow many were in the cUissified service and sub- 
ject to examination before appointment ? — A. One hundred and two. I 
thiaik that is inclusive of substitutes. 

Q. How many were in the excepted places, or places below the civil 
service? — A. I believe twenty-eight, sir. 

Q. Host many in the excepted service — the number in th'e classified 
service. 

The Witness. One hundred and two. 

The Chairman. What is the other ? 

The Witness. One hundred and forty-five. 

The Chairman. Then that would leave forty-three 1 

The Witness. There is some below the civil service what you would — 
for instance, some stamp agencies, etc., so it makes the whole number, 
the number in the excepted positions proper would be twenty-eight and 
fifteen. 

The Chairman. That would be forty-three ; fehat is what it is. 

The Witness. Altogether. 

Mr. Boatner. It is bound to be if there are one hundred and two 
in the classified service and one hundred and forty-five in all; it is bound 
to be forty-three. 

The Witness. You understand there are men appointed who sell 
stamps in the city. 

The Chairman. They are simply selling stamps and are not in the 
office ? — A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. 8tone : 

Q. Of the sixty-nine persons employed in the classified service on 
June 1, 1885, when you took charge, how many severed their coainection 
with the office during your incumbency ? — A. Twenty perjsons. 

Q. Of the twenty persons how many were removed ? — A. Five. 

Q. For what reason were they removed ; I mean were their removals 
due to political, personal, or official causes 1 — A. There were no removals 
on political grounds ever. The only removals made were for violations 
or offenses under the postal law and regulations generally ; a majority, 
I think, according to my recollection, were for intoxication. 

Q. Well, of the twenty who separated from the office five were 
removed, how did the other fifteen separate ? — A. Eesignations and 
deaths. I think they were all resignations. Allow me to examine my 
memorandum for a moment (looking at memorandum), fourteen of them 
resigned and one of them died, sir. 

Q. That covers the classified. Now there were twenty-five persons 
employed in the excepted places ? — A. Yes, sir ; what is the inquiry ? 

Mr. Stone. One moment. How many of those severed their con- 
nection with the office during your incumbency ? — A. Fifteen. 

Q. Of that number how many were removed f — A. Five of them were 
removed from the excepted places. 

Q. How did the other ten cease their connection with the office? — A. 
Five of them resigned and the positions of five were abolished by the 
Department. 

Q. Then of the employes in the office at the date of your appointment 
thirty persons were removed or died or resigned and five places were 
abolished ? — A. Five places. 

Q. Twenty in the classified service and ten in the unclassified serv- 
ice were removed, died, or resigned ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Wer« those thirty vacancies occasioned by resignations, removals, 
or death filled by your appointment 1 — A. Yes, sir. 



288 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. To what extent and what namber was the classified service or 
classified force of the office increased during your incumbency? — A. 
Well, sir, T make thirty carriers, adding the other places ten, making a 
total increase of forty. 

Q. But to what extent was the excepted or unclassified board in- 
creased during your incumbency? — A. Eleven. 

Q. The office force, then, was increased to fifty-one persons during 
your term ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Those fifty-one added to the ninety-four employed at the date of 
your appointment makes one-hundred and forty-five employed at the 
date of your retirement? — A. Yes, sir; that is the figure. Yes, sir; 
that makes ninety-four. 

Q. It makes one hundred and forty-five? 

The Witness. I mean makes one hundred and forty-five. 

Q. Your appointment, then, covered the fifty-one increased force and 
thirty vacancies referred to as occurring in the old 1885 force ? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Of the employes, both classified and unclassified service? — A. 
Yes, sir ; the whole number. 

Q. Is it true also that persons appointed by you afterwards ceased 
their connection with that office during your term?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many in the classified service of your own appointees retired 
during your term? — A. Fourteen. 

Q. Of these how many were removed ? — A. Five. 

Q. How did the others separate?— A. Those of my own appointees ? 

Q. Yes, sir. — A. Nine ; eight resigned and one died. 

Q. How many in the unclassified service of your own appointees re- 
tired during your term ? — A. The same number, fourteen. 

Q, How many were removed? — A. Two. 

Q. How did the other twelve separate ? — A. Eesigned, eleven, and 
died, one. 

Q. Altogether, then, twenty-eight of your own appointees separated 
from this office, fourteen in each branch, a,nd their places were refilled 
by you ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ifow, let me understand 

The Witness. Eecollect, this is on my best calculation on these sta- 
tistics. 

Q. Where have you made these calculations, from reports in the 
Post-Office Department ? — A. Yes, sir, and from reports I have taken 
from the official records. 

Q. Now, let me understand. There were in your office sixty-nine 
people under the classified service when you took charge in 1885 ? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And you removed only five of them during your entire term ? — 
A. Yes, sir ; that was all. 

Q. Now, there were twenty-five persons in office when you took 
charge in excepted positions and not included in the civil service, and 
who could be removed and their places filled by you at your pleasure. — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You removed only five of them during your entire term ? — A. Yes, 
sir ; that is all, sir. 

Q. Of the ninety-four persons you found in your office when you took 
charge you removed only ten ? — A, That is all. 

The Chairman. Is it necessary to repeat these questions ? He has 
already stated all that. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 289 

Mr. Stone. I think you Lad better just let me proceed, Mr. Chair- 
nian. 

The Chairman. All right. I only wanted to get through with the 
witness as soon as possible. 

Mr. Stone. I will get through shortly. (To the witness.) Now, you 
were responsible for the official integrity of the employes ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What were the politics of your chief officers — heads of divisions ? — 
A. The answer to that question covers a period of over four years. 
Shall I answer that question in detail, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Stone. I simply asked the question what were their politics. 

The Witness. Of the chiefs of divisions ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. — A. At what special dates, sir. 

Q. Well, during your term. — A. I can not answer that question di- 
rectly as to the entire term. For instance, I will illustrate. The chief 
of the money-order division was there about three or more years — a 
Eepublican ; and then Mr. Fahsel Of the exa liniug-board took his 
place, being promoted. 

Q. He was a Democrat 1 — A. Fahsel was understood to be so ; he 
was termed a Democrat, I believe. 

Mr. BoATNER. That is, his politics were not very well defined"? 

The Witness. No; they were not very well defi.ned. Eo, sir; he 
was not a politician. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. Well, as to the others ? — A. The superintendent of the mail divis- 
ion, from my understanding, was a very pronounced Republican ; not 
offensively so in his political duties. The superintendent of the stamp 
division was a Eepublican. The superintendent of the registry division 
was Shidy. I do not know what you woukl call him now. The super- 
intendent of the free-delivery division was a Democrat and a labor 
man. 

Q. Was what ? — A. He acted partially with what is called the labor 
organization of our State. 

Q. Well, is that all '? — A. The superintendent of the general delivery 
was a Eepublican throughout, I think that makes a complete answer 
to the question. 

Q. And these chiefs had immediate control of the men in their re- 
spective divisions ?— A. Yes, sir; had immediate charge of them. 

Q. Can you give me an accurate or an approximate idea of the politi- 
cal affiliations of your office force at the date of your retirement? — A. 
I have undertaken to state that fact as nearly as possible from my in- 
formation, but it is an estimate. I was not in politics myself directly, 
and of course do not claim to be an expert in that matter, but this is 
my answer. There were eight minors and five women in the force, and 
of the remainder I estimate there were about seventy persons of Eepub- 
lican j)roclivities a id associations, and fifty or more of Democratic pro- 
clivities, some of whom probably belonged to the labor organization, 
which is a third party organization. The others are wholly unknown 
to me of their political associations or ideas. 

Q. So then during your term and at its close, j)ractically, nearly all 
employes in your ollice were Eepublicans, having only one Democratic 
head of division ; a large majority of your working force was Eepub- 
lican ? — A. Yes, sir ; quite a large majority. Of course that included 
the original force, and I should say that those who entered the office 
by appointment during my term were very nearly divided with a little 
prepoudcrauce in the iavor of the anti-Eepublicau force. 
3117 19 



290 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Of your own appointees? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did that apply to both classes, that is, the classified and the un- 
classified appointments'? — A. Yes, sir; it applied to all classes. 

Q. Mr. Paul, what are your jjolitics ? — A. My politics, it is almost 
impossible to state. If you wish me to explain my political views I 
could do so at length, but it might not entertain the committee. 

Q. Were you considered a Democrat or a mugwump? — A. I am 
classed as a Democrat in my views on Government principles. 

Q. A Democratic spoilsman ? — A. No, sir ; not under any circum- 
stances. 

Q. If you were a Democrat in charge of this office why did not you 
select Democrats at least in the chiefs of divisions, at the head of 
them ?— A. Well, sir, I understand that would have been a violation of 
the intent of the civil ssrvice law. 

Q. But those men held excepted places ? — A. Yes, sir; but 1 under- 
stand the law to be general, especially the proclamations of successive 
Presidents have been to the effect to include those outside the rules 
and regulations, to the effect that political considerations shall not 
govern any official charged 

Q. You were an officer of the civil service association in the North- 
west when you were made postmaster ? — A. Yes, sir ; and am still. 

Q. The object of that association was to inculcate and advance the 
civil service idea ? — A, Yes ; the civil service idea. 

Q. You were an advocate of civil service reform ? — A. I am in a gen- 
eral sense. I have expressed my views in writing and they are pub- 
lished with others in the reports to Congress. I have doubted the 
practicability of the civil service reform law in its present state. If I 
am allowed a single remark, I think it restrains an honest man and does 
not restrain a rascal in this. That is my impression of the law. 

Q. Do you contend that you conducted your office along the line and 
j)ractice of civil service reform ? — A. Yes, sir; I do entirely. 

Q. Do you contend that you conformed your administration sub- 
stantially to the requirements of the civil service law ? — A. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Q. Do you contend that your appointments in the classified service 
were made in conformity with that law ? — A. Yes, sir ; but I ought to say 
this, perhaps, that the law and the rules being new are in a technical 
sense considerably crude ; that there is necessarily an insufficiency in the 
execution of the law because of the inability under that organization to 
execute such a law. The Commission is not large enough to carry on 
the machinery throughout the entire country on that account. 

Q. I am speaking now of your office, not of the Commission, of your 
work in your office at Milwaukee. — A. So far as I could understand the 
purposes of the Commission and its rules and so far as they were ap- 
plicable to myself as postmaster I executed the law, I think, as correctly 
and uniformly as can be done by any postmaster. 

Q. Do you contend that the local board at Milwaukee observed the 
law so far as your knowledge extends in examining and marking and 
certifying applicants to you for appointment ? — A. Yes, sir ; I believe 
that the local board acted in good faith so far as that is concerned, as a 
board. 

Q. I understand your legal connection with the civil service is to call 
for certifications, to make your appointment from same, and then re- 
ceipt for your man ? — A. Not entirely. 

Q. What else had you to do with it legally ? — A. Yes, sir ; there are 
some reports to make, but practically the duties of a postmaster or ap- 



CIVIL SEEVICK INVESTIGATION. 



291 



pointing officer under the law are limited to the mere selection of his 
appointees from the certiii cation. 

Q. The Civil Service Commission charges and Shidy swears that 
the local board acted in concert with you, manipulated markings and 
certifications in order to secure appointments which could not be made 
in the regular way. I understand you to deny that ! — A. I deny that 
totally. 

Q. Mr. Paul, as a matter of fact, can not such things be done, and 
easily done, by a postmaster situated, for instance, as you were, pro- 
vided the postmaster is disposed to do it under the law "? — A. It is my 
opinion, in answer to this question, that a j)Ostmaster disposed to be 
dishonest and who is without conscientiousness in the execution of the 
law, can fill his office from top to bottom with his own political friends. 
I have not the slightest doubt about that, under the law. 

Q. How can he do that without coming into violation of the law, and 
subjecting himself to punishment! — A. I do not think an open violation 
of the law would be necessary, nor do I believe, under the present sys- 
tem, that he would be discovered as a rule if he should calculatingly 
intend to violate the law. While I think it could be done 

Q. Well, how ? — A. Well, sir, one answer to that question implies 
some reference to the process of appointment from the beginning. The 
examinations are made by the local board. A postmaster and his 
friends and political committees may stuff the examination class to any 
extent, is the first criticism I will make. Supposing the local board to 
be fairly observant of the law in the marking, there was really no pen- 
alty that they fear in that, but as a rule they would naturally mark cor- 
rectly under the instructions of the Commission, but when the certifica- 
tions are made it is very possible for them to make these irregular cer- 
tifications in some cases if the Commission does not exercise an imme- 
diate and constant practical supervision over the whole matter. Then, 
again, while I disclaim that my board was ever in any manner subservi- 
ent to me in any special way, still in that case I think they are very 
liable to be subservient to the general political character of the office, 
to the disposition of the appointing officer, and might be under his con- 
trol. Then, perhaps, lastly and in the most important degree, the dis- 
cretion which is given the postmaster in the selection froui three names 
now, which was formerly four, is almost sufficient practically to enable 
him to select men of his own politics in every case. In three names 
coming to;him, if the appointing officer is a politician, he either knows 
or can easily ascertain what is the political character of these men. If 
his object is to promote the interest of his political party, he selects in 
every instance — in every instance he will select a political friend, of 
course, and in that way nearly all the appointments would go out to a 
man of his own political faith. I do not see anything to prevent him if 
the person is not conscientious in the observance of the law. I think, 
after all, the efficiency of the civil service must depend upon the char- 
acter of the appointing officer. 

Q. Is it not true as a rule, speaking as a man of observation and ex- 
perience, that more people friendly to the existing national administra- 
tion apply for civil -service examination than those opposed to it?— A. 
Yes, sir ; the public sentiment is, " after all, I am entitled to appoint- 
ment because I have served the party." This is the general current of 
opinion among applicants. 

Q. Now, if these certifications could be manipulated so as to secure 
the appointment of a political friend, could not the manipulation extend 
a little further so as to secure the appointment of a personal friend ? — 
A. Tes, sir ; in the same way precisely. 



292 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. In otlier words, can not the postmaster at Milwaukee or New York 
or St. Louis, if lie felt disposed to do so, reach about the same end he 
desired with this law ? — A. Yes, sir ; I do not think the law is a neces- 
sary restraint except upon a man's conscience and his oath of office. 

Q. Mr. Paul, do you think such a course as Shidy swears he pursued 
is in accord with the civil- service idea of which you are a distinguished 
advocate and exponent? — A. I do not quite understand the latter part 
of the question, Mr. Stone. 

Q. Do you think that the course which Mr. Shidy swears he pursued 
is in accord with the civil-service idea ? — A. In accordance with civil- 
service law as I understand it ? 

Q. Yes, sir. — A. Well, sir, it is my opinion that his course certainly 
is not in accord with the requirements of the law and rules, but I be- 
lieve the trouble with the certifications arises largely from the confusion 
of the board as to the instructions of the Commission, and its many 
changes of the Commission itself, many changes of the rules themselves, 
and the crude state of those rules. Perhaps I did not get your idea. 

Q. I am speaking of Mr. Shidy's testimony, which you have read. 
Do you thiuk it would have been a proper thing for Mr. Shidy to do 
what he swears he did do ? — A. No, sir 5 I do not. 

Q. Would you have considered it your duty to report him to his 
superiors here at Washington if you had had knowledge of such con- 
duct on his part? — A. If I had had an opportunity to have examined 
his record of certifications and to know just precisely his process of 
making the certifications, I certainly should have reported it to all 
mankind without exception, 

Q. Would you have a man remain in your employ who was con- 
stantly and intentionally violating the law he was specially charged 
with enforcing ? — A. No, sir, I would not. 

Q. Did you not know it was improper, even criminal, for Mr. Shidy 
to publish a list of eligibles and expose the record to your inspection or 
to the inspection of others in your office ? — A. Yes, sir, I did, and I 
supposed at the time that the Commission itself was perfectly aware of 
that fact. That was my presumption. But this the Commission ought 
to know, and it is alone responsible for the discharge of its duties under 
the Commission or any of its officers, and the postmaster has too many 
other duties to charge him with the supervision of that portion of the 
law. 

Q. Did you permit these practices of Shidy's to be done with your 
knowletlge and pass without censure ? — A. No, sir ; in every case 
known to me I usually referred the matter of Dr. Shidy's to the board 
and told them they must be more careful in observing the law as well 
as the spirit of the rules. 

Q. As you are an advocate of civil-service reform, why did you not 
insist on Shidy's obeying the civil-service law ? — A. I was not aware, 
sir, of any violation, mainly, except in a technical way, until this inves- 
tigation. 

Mr. Thompson. Will you ask the witness where that list of eligibles 
was published, whether he regarded that as a technical violation of the 
law, which was a positive violation of the rules at that time ? 

Mr. Stone. What do you say to that ? 

The Witness. No, sir ; I would not regard that as technical, but at 
the same time I did not regard and never have regarded it as my es- 
pecial duty to look after the immediate action of the examining board 
in my office. 

Mr. BoATNER. Has it been offered here in evidence that Dr. Shidy 
published a list of eligibles in a paper I 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. . 293 

The Witness. Yes, sir ; he published all of the persons- 



Mr. Stone. Mr. Paul testified to that. In this connection is it not 
evident from your statemeut that the civil-service law was administered 
loosely, to put it in a mild form, at Milwaukee, without regard now to 
whose fault it was or the motive. The fact is, it was loosely admin- 
istered. — A. I do not think that word will apply to the general admin- 
istration of the law, sir. There were a number of cases referred to as 
violations of the law, technical violations 

Q. I understand that you claim that it was largely owing to the inat- 
tention, indolence, and loose business methods of Mr. Shidy, etc. 

The Witness. And that the actual violations were limited — there 
was a small number — out of the number of cases referred to, about one 
hundred certifications, very few were of this class. I think the law was 
pretty well observed by the board. 

Q. Mr. Paul, you did not remove Shidy from the post-office because 
of any official irregularities committed by him as secretary of the board 
of local examiners'? — A. No, sir; 1 did not, because he was at that time 
in the hands of the Commission. 

Q. Did the Civil Service Commission remove him from the local board 
after his alleged crimes were discovered ?— A. No, sir ; they did not, or 
any other member of the local board. 

Q. Was he a member of the local board at the time you discharged 
him from the post-office? — A. Yes, sir; he was as far as I know. 

Q. Did the Commission remove Johnston or Fahsel after their visit to 
Milwaukee in 1889 ? — A. No, sir ; Mr. Johnston served until a week or 
two ago continuously ; Mr. Fahsel until he resigned, I think, from the 
office, perhaps a month ago or more. 

Q. Did this Ci\il Service Commission permit these three men, after 
all these alleged irregularities were discovered, to continue there as a 
local board ? — A. They did continue to act as a local board as long as 
they remained in the office, each and every one, except Mr. Johnston, 
who resigned, I think, two or three weeks ago. 

Mr. Roosevelt. This is Mr. Paul's statement ; this is simjjly his state- 
ment ; I understand this is not a statement of fact. We can be exam- 
ined on that evidence. 

The Chairman. This is all Mr. Paul's testimony. 

The Witness. This is my understanding of the facts, sir. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. The charge against you is, you conspired with Shidy to defeat the 
civil service law so as to make some appointments which would not 
have been made if the law had been followed in letter and spirit; that 
favoritism was shown and that some men were appointed who were 
not entitled to receive appointments. Have any other charges been 
made against your administration of the office ? — A. Not that I know of 
or ever heard of. 

Q. Has any person in authority — have the people or the press ever 
complained that your office was badly administered '? — A. No, sir. 

Q. And that the public service suffered by reason of your method of 
business ? — A. Not in any essential particulars to my knowledge. 

Q. Did you have any trouble in your office ? This list of charges states 
that rules of the civil service were not observed in these appointments 
or some of them 

The Witness. In these certifications ? 

Q. Was there any trouble about the actual workings of the office ? — 
A. No, sir ; the workings of the office and the office itself generally was 



294 CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 

commended by the Department repeatedly, by the heads of the Depart- 
ment. 

Q. Ilffow, I want to ask this question and I believe I am through. I 
want to ask you as an experienced civil service reformer 

The Witness. I do not claim that, sir. 

Q. Whether it is not possible that a post-office even of the first-class 
might be successfully administered and the work of the ofiice done by 
men who were never asked, for instance, when the battle of Bunker Hill 
was fought, but who were equal to the duty of canceling stamps, keep- 
ing books, and delivering mail? — A. Oh, yes, sir; I think there is a 
wide discordance in the nature of the examination to the duties to be 
performed practically in the office, except in this, that the examinations 
generally are an evidence of good general information and intelligence 
somewhat on the part of the candidate. But it must be also understood 
practically — I have given this information to the committee some time — 
it must also be understood tliat this class which apply for examination 
are those men least fit for entering the public employment as a rule, and 
they apply because they are out of i)laces. When men get out of places 
because of lack of qualification they are sure to come into this exami- 
nation if they have any school education at all. 

Q. The men appointed by you to excepted places, were they men of 
as much capacity for the discharge of the duties to which they were 
called as those that were appointed under the rules of the civil serv- 
ice ? — A. Far better, sir 5 far better, and their qualifications were far 
better than those obtained from the Civil Service Commission at the 
close of my administration, for I made special comparisons in reference 
to the truth of this matter. 

(Here Mr. Boatner took the chair.) 

Mr. Stone. According to the theory that when no examination was 
to be had he would have in view more especially the particular quali- 
fications of the applicant for the service he was called upon to perform 
than a general scholastic examination. 

The Witness. My office is peculiar in that respect. 

Q. I am not speaking particularly of your office. I am discussing 
this with you now as a gentleman who is supposed to have given a good 
deal of attention to civil service. — A. I am positive of this fact, Mr. 
Chairman, that an intelligent appointing officer, with the desire to pro- 
mote the public service to the highest degree and with a familiar 
knowledge of all the facts concerning his office, can make a better 
selection, a far better selection, from the applicants examined if the 
whole list was submitted to him than by a selection from three at a 
time. I think the examination is a good guaranty of general qualifi- 
cation for the position as far as it goes, but the selection could be very 
largely improved if he was allowed the whole range of the list, so as to 
study the special adaptation of applicants to particular places. The 
qualifications required are very various, which are not recognized in 
the examination at all. For instance, the stamp clerk requires one 
qualification, a money-order clerk another, and a stamper another, and 
so on all the way through. The man who stamps letters, 12,000 before 
breakfast, ought to be a quick man, for instance, and he must be rapid, 
must be a light, nervous, quick man. The man who counts money must 
have some financial ability; and so the man who is a letter-carrier 
must not be a man in poor health, in poor strength, or lacking in 
strength, or other qualities that make a man rai^id and strong on foot; 
and so I might go on indefinitely. The examination should have refer- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 295 

ence to all these tliing^s. A carrier who can not speak the German 
laiig^uage in our city is utterly worthless; the carrier who comes from 
the outside of the city can not jjerform any duty worth while for months 
and years, and so on. 1 might enumerate an indefinite number of these 
qualifications, special qualifications required, which are not recognized 
in the examination at all. For instance, in our office, which is a large 
one in the United States, we have Germans, ]N"orwegians, Italians, and 
every kind of population. You hear, as I once mentioned to the Com- 
mission, at least five languages spoken in a street-car at the same time, 
and what are you going to do ? One neighborhood is Italian, another 
is a lot of Icelanders, perhaps another is entirely German, and all that ; 
still you must take one of the three that is presented for that particu- 
lar district for which his appointment is to be taken at the time. 

Q. Well your idea is this, by submitting the whole list you would be 
able to secure a man competent for a particular position. — A. Yes, sir; 
I think the only safeguard is in submitting the whole list as according 
to law, also in the appointment of the appointing officer or postmaster 
or custom-house collector, whatever he might be. If a man is a bad 
man who is taken he will perform bad service and in the case of a good 
man he will naturally perform good service in that light. The point I 
make is, that the civil service law and rules as now constructed, of course 
being somewhat crude, being new and not grown up by any process of 
evolution, are not a practical restraint upon a man of bad disposition 
in office except to a very limited degree. 

The Chaikman. Are there any further questions of this witness ? 

Mr. Lyman. I would like to ask Mr. Paul two or three questions. 
He has stated, in answer to questions propounded by Mr. Stone, that a 
certain number of employes then in his office were of two political 
parties, and as I understood him, in answer to Mr. Stone's question, he 
stated they were all Eepublicans when he took charge; is that a fact? — 
A. Yes, sir ; that is what I stated. 

Q. On what do yon base that statement? — A. Well, sir, I base it 
partially on a practical knowledge of the relation of the men, partially 
on the fact that the postmaster himself was an officer of the Eepubli- 
can State Committee; but I dislike to give some evidence of that be- 
cause 

Q. Do you mean that you yourself were a member of the State Com- 
mittee or your predecessor ? — A. My predecessor, I stated. 

Q. Did you make inquiry of the employes of the office to ascertain 
their politics ? — A. I had knowledge from facts in that office. 

Q. You can answer the questions directly, can you not? 

The Chairman. He asked you whether you made inquiry of the em- 
ployes whether they were Eepublicans or Democrats ? 

The Witness. No, sir. I never did. 

By Mr. Lyman : 

Q. Did you make inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining what their 
politics were? — A. No, sir; but they were publicly known. They were 
known by conversation, but I had knowledge from other sources. 

Q. But you satisfied yourself on that point, so you are speaking now 
from information you obtained at that time that they were all Eepubli- 
cans ?— A. They always were and always had been Eepublicans. 

Q. In answer to Mr. Stone you also stated that of the persons ap- 
pointed by you while you were postmaster a large percentage were 
Democrats. How did you know that fact? — A. Appointed by me a 



296 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

large percentage ? Not a large percentage ; no, sir ; I did not intend 
to say that. 

Q. You gave the figures? — A. I did not give definite figures 5 I did 
not know exactly how they stood, but I say by estimate 

Q. But you gave certain figures, and all I wanted to know was upon 
what you based that statement ? — A. Not by personal investigation at 
all, sir. I ignored the political side of the question entirely in the man- 
agement of the ofldce ; entirely. 

Q. Then you did not know the politics of these people who were in 
the office when you came in by personal inquiry, and you did not learu 
the politics 

The Witness. I would like to state to Mr. Lyman personally just 
how I kijew the politics of the men, if it is deemed necessary. 

Mr. Lyman. That is all I wanted to bring out, the basis of your in- 

, formation. — A. I did know the fact. I do not wish to reflect upon my 

predecessor at all, but I do know the fact that a large portion of the 

force of that office was practically engaged in politics, in canvassing the 

city. I knew so from the books and papers left in the office. 

Q. Was not that the tendency under the old system of appointment, 
that they should all be political ? — A. Yes, sir; my predecessor was not 
under the civil service at that time. 

Q. For how long?— A. Well, sir, that the Commission can answer. 
The date I went in was June the 1st, 1885. 

Q, I want to know if you can tell how many appointments he made 
un(.^r civil-service law? 

The Witness. What was the question ? 

Q. Can you tell from memory how many appointments your prede- 
cessor made under the civil-service law? — A. No, sir, I can not. 

Q. But a very small part of the force ? — A. I presume it would be a 
very small fraction of the whole number. 

Q. Then it is probably true that a large percentage of the force was 
appointed before the civil -service law went into effect? — A. That is un- 
questionably the fact. 

Q. And you think that probably accounts for the fact that the force 
was almost unanimously Republican ? — A. It may account for the fact 
that a great part of the appointees were of oae political party. I did 
not comment on it, but stated it in answer to a question. 

Mr. LYMA.N. I wanted to state to the committee that the Commission 
may desire to file statements from the official record and the Post-Office 
Department in connection with the testimony given by this witness this 
morning — drawn out this morning. 

The Witness. Is it a question of politics ? 

Mr. Lyman. No, sir, it is simply the statistics made up by the official 
record and Post Office Department. 

The Witness. The statistics I have are simply verified by me, by 
the Department reports here mostly and from the official record. 

Mr. Thompson. I desire to introduce a letter into testimony here from 
the Assistant Postmaster General, and I will state 

Mr. Stone. Are you through with this witness ? 

Mr. Lyman. That is all I desire to ask of this witness now. 

Mr. Thompson. 1 understood Mr. Paul to say yesterday or in the 
c )iirse of his testimony that Mr. Cumming had never held any but an 
excepted place in the Milwaukee Post Office ; that he never held a place 
in the classified service. I understood him to introduce or to offer to in- 
troduce an affidavit of Mr. Cumming to that effect. In reply to Mr. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 297 

Paul's statement and that affidavit I desire to read the following letter 
from Assistant Postmaster General Clark son. 

Post-Office Department, 
Office of the First Assistant Postmaster General, 

Washington, March 6, 1890. 
Sir : In reply to your letter of the r)th instant, relative to Ms. Charles J. Cumming, a 
clerk formerly attached to the post-office at Milwaukee, Wis., I beg to state that the 
records show that Mr. Cumming was approved as a stamper, at an annual compensa- 
tion of $220, from May 1 to May 15, 1888. From May 16 to July 31, 1888, his compen- 
sation was increased to $270 at year; from August 1 to September 14, his compensa- 
tion was approved at $410 a year; from September 15, 1888, to January 15, 1889, his 
compensation was approved at $450 ; from January 16, 1889, to June 30, 1889, his 
compensation was approved at$o00 ; from July 1, 1889, to December 31, 1889, his com- 
pensation, under the classilication act, was approved at $600 a year. 

The pay-rolls on file with the Auditor show that the quarterly compensation ap- 
proved for Mr, Cumming was as follows : 

From May 1 to June 30,1888 $43.33 

Quarter ended September 30, 1888 90.72 

Quarter ended December 31, 1888. 112. 50 

Quarter ended March 31, 1889 112.50 

Quarter ended June 30, 1889 125.00 

Quarter ended September 30, 1889 150.00 

Quarter ended December 31, 1889 i 150.00 

Very respectfully, 

J. S. Clarkson, 
First Assistant Postmaster-General. 
Hon. Charles Lyman, 

President Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C. 

I have run this over rapidly, and I understand that he received nearly 
pay straight along under that appointment. 

Mr. BoATNER. What is the lowest salary under the classified serv- 
ice? 

Mr. Thompson. There is no minimum in a post-office. 

The Chairman. He was receiving payment as stamper under civil- 
service rules in the classified service? 

Mr. EoosEVELT. From May 1. May 1 was the time he was appointed, 
and he received this pay right along. I understood Mr. Paul the other 
day to state that he was not appointed to that place, aud then he stated 
he was appointed and declined, and produced an affidavit to that effect. 

The Chairman. Mr. Paul, the recollection of the chairman is that you 
stated Mr. Cumming was appointed stamper and declined, and that he 
never held any but an excepted position ? 

Mr. Stone. The evidence itself will show it. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Now, one moment. I will ask this question: Here is a letter from 
Mr. Clarkson, which says that he received jjay as a stamper "? 

The Witness. Did I put those affidavits in yesterday? Mr. Cum- 
ming makes affidavit that 

Q. Have you any knowledge of this ? 

The Witness. If you will allow me time to look at this letter I may 
give you an answer. 

The Chairman. Not referring to the affidavit of Mr. Cumming, have 
you any personal recollection whether Mr. Cumming served in an ex- 
cepted position or in a position which came under the civil-service reg- 
ulations ? — A. 1 think he was confirmed in an excepted position. I 
think he was first nominated for stamper, but transferred to an excepted 
position, and 1 know that nearly all this time referred to in these dates 
he was serving in an excepted position. 

Q. Mr. Paul, I want to call to your mind that you did state here when 



298 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION, 

you were under examination the other day that he was appointed as a 
stamper and declined to accept that position. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you stated then that he never was employed in the office in 
a position other than an excepted position. — A. Yes, sir ; and that is 
why he was employed all the time referred to. 

Q. How do you account for this letter of Mr.^Clarkson? — A. I might 
account for it in this way. He says that Mr. Cummings was approved 
as a stamper at $220 per annum from May 1 and May 15, etc., and May 
16, July 1, and so on. Now the fact is, according to my recollection, 
that Mr. Oummings was first nominated by the express direction or order 
of the Commission as a stamper, which would be in the classified or 
service covering an examination, and that having been nominated under 
that letter from the Commission to the Department, he declined and 
then was simply transferred on the record from the position of stamper 
to that of a stam]3 clerk in the general delivery, which place he occupies 
now and is there in the office. I can not see that there is any discrepancy 
here except in this, that it is true that it has assumed that he was in 
the classified service up to the present day, which is not the case at all, 
to my knowledge. 

Q. Your statement is, he never was in the classified service. — A. I 
never knew him to be in the classified service. 

Q. The facts are, if this -letter is correct, and that appears to betaken 
from the record, the facts are these, that Mr. Cummings occupied a posi- 
tion in the post-office that was an excepted i^osition, — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that he was by your report drawing the salary as a classified 
clerk, was he not, by your report here to the Department ; that he was 
on the pay-roll of the Department in one capacity and doing work in 
another, was he not? — A. Well, sir, I think he is reported to the De- 
partment and occupying another position j lam not quite sure he is. 
Mr. Stone, did you return those papers *? 

Mr. Stone. That is the roster? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir, I sent them back. 

The, Witness. I examined the roster very rapidly going over it yes- 
terday, but I think he is reported as having accepted the position as a 
stamp clerk, and Mr. Clarkson, of course, in making this would not 
have the other before him. I know it to be the fact that he has served 
continuously in an excepted position and not in the classified service, 
and I am very positive that he is now reported on the regular roster as 
being in an excepted position. 

The Chairman. I understand, Mr. Paul, the affidavits you desire to 
be an exhibit before the committee. Are there any other papers you 
wish to go before the committee ? 

The Witness. Yes, sir, I think so. I wish to refer directly in refer- 
ence to the communication of Mr. Clarkson and the rosters themselves. 
As it now stands it is disconnected entirely 

Mr. Stone. I had these rosters you know, and Mr. Scott, chief of 
that division, requested me yesterday to return them, and said he 
wanted to use them ; I do not know what for, and in accordance with 
his request I gave them to the messenger to go back. 

The Chairman. Mr. Paul, let me ask you this question, because you 
want to be set right if you have made any mistake. In case it should 
appear that he is carried on the roll as in a stamper's position, it is then 
merely an oversight on your part 1 — A. Nothing more than that, in that 
position. 

Mr. Thompson. He was paid for it 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 299 

The Chairman. 1 stated if it is so made Mr. Paul says it was a mat- 
ter of oversight in not notifying the Department. 

The Witness, Entirely. 

The Chairman. You want it to be so stated ? 

The Witness. Yes. 

Mr. BoATNER. Would the pay be better or less for the position which 
he actually holds, or the position to which he would carry on the roll as 
shown by this letter? — A. There would be no difference. I think the com- 
mittee will understand this better when it is understood how clerks are 
reported. The law requires the postmaster to make a roster of his clerks 
and report them as he wishes them confirmed. Once in so often. Now 
it is simply possible that while Cummings was appointed a stamper 
and that in the report of the entire force of the office, that he was in- 
cluded in the roll in an excepted position and confirmed by the Depart- 
ment. I think that is the exact state of the case. 

I wish to introduce into the testimony a copy of the letter of the 
United States Civil Service Commission, signed by Mr. Graham, the 
secretary, September 18, 1885. That letter is not addressed to me ; it 
is addressed to the examining board, and the only object in introducing 
it is to have the committee judge whether that letter was misconstrued 
as charged by the Commission. 

U. S. Civil Service Commission, 
Washington, D. C, September 18, 1885. 
Dear Sir : In the absence of Ms colleagues, Commissioner Gregory, now in charge, 
directs me to reply to your letter of September 16, that the examination for porters, 
stamp boys, junior clerks, etc., provided for in Regulation 22, implies that the per- 
sons eligible under these examinations shall be included on a distinct register ol 
eligibles from which certifications may be made to such positions as you describe 
paying $360 a year. Those who have taken higher examinations as clerks or carriers 
may, of course, be certified to these lower places, and for this purpose may be trans- 
ferred to the lower registers on their request. 
Very respectfully, 

EoBT. Graham, 

Secretary. 
Dr. H. Shidy, 

Secretary Board of Examiners, Post- Office, 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

The Chairman. Here is Cumming's affidavit. 

The Witness. Shall 1 read it 1 

The Chairman. It is in evidence, you want merely to refresh your 
memory and there is no necessity of reading it. 

The Witness. I think the affidavit explains the matter, the latter 
end of it. 

The Chairman. Touhave been examined on it and it is unnecessary 
to have it go down again. 

The Witness. He was simi3ly nominated as a stamper, but declined 
the position of stamper 5 he was included as stamper, but subsequently 
the Department or the Commission declared his position exempt, and 
that is where the transfer was made by the action of the Commissioner. 

By the Chairman : 
Q. Did not declare the position of stamper exempt ? — A. No, sir. 
Q. Then if this affidavit is correct, if it is true, then the records in 
the Post-Office Department are false in this when they say that he was 
appointed as a stamper, are they not ? — A. I think not, sir; he was ap- 
pointed as a stamper or rather in the grade of a stamper. 

^ Q. But he was drawing pay as a stamper ? — A. Yes, sir. If you will 
allow me just to state the fact as it is so, there will be no misappre- 
hension. Mr. Cumming was nominated as a stamper in the service, 



300 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

that is to the grade of a stamper. There is no difference in the pay, 
and subsequently while being put to work in a certain position in the 
grade of stamper by the Department, or with the concurrence of the Com- 
mission, the position he filled was declared to be exempt from civil-serv- 
ice examination, and that transferred him by the action of the Depart- 
ment from a ^.ertified to an excepted position. 

Q. But, Mr. Paul, one moment ; the roster of the department showed 
that this man was receiving salary as a stamper ; that is incorrect, is it 
not, because he was not doing work as a stamper 1 — A. The roster does 
not declare that; the roster declares the actual position. I am very 
sorry I can not be understood. 

Mr. Webster. Will you allow me to ask one question in this con- 
nection ? This is a matter I brought out on Tuesday evening, and ask 
if this letter- — 

Mr. Stone. Just one moment, if you please. I would like to under- 
stand this ; I have not done so yet. 

Several Members. And we have not either. 

The Witness. I gave you the common understanding of it in con- 
nection with the affidavit. Mr. Gumming was duly examined ; the Com- 
mission ordered or permitted his restoration to the service, after having 
been certified three times; on account of injustice in the matter. He 
was then appointed a stamper, which would be a civil service position, 
that is, nominated for that position. 

Mr. Boatner. Do you mean appointed as a stamper or to the 
stamper gra.de '? — A. Not as stamper, but to the stamper grade. Subse- 
quently the very position to which he was apj)ointed to, the stamper 
grade, the duties were such that department declared that position ex- 
empt from the classified service. Now, can that be understood ? 

Mr. Boatner. Allow me to see if I get this idea. Mr. Paul, you say 
he was aj^pointed to the stamper's grade? — A. Yes, sir; nominated. 

Q. What kind of work was he assigned to? — A. To the handling of 
the stamps. 

Q. -To the handling of the stamps ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Which class of work to which he was assigned was declared by 
the department not to be in the classified service ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he still remains in that grade? — A. Appointed at that time. 

Q. And payment allowed for that place I — A. Yes, sir ; there is no 
diiference in the i)ay. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. When the position was declared exemiit he was in the registry 
dei^artment °? — A. No, sir ; the general deliver}^ 

Q. In the stamp department of the general delivery ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q, And they declared that place exempt from the civil-service law ? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Would it not be quite a natural mistake to have him still carried 
on the roster as stamper when he was in the general delivery ? — A. But 
I think it is carried on the rolls as a stamper. I think the name ap- 
pears there. 

Q. In making allowance it would be a very easy matter to carry him 
on the roll and register as a stamper ? — A. They could do it. 

Mr. Andrew, liut did they do so? 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 
Q. I want to ask a question. Do I understand you correctly to say 
that we allowed you to appoint him to the classified service ; that the 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 301 

Commission allowed you to appoint him in the classified service f — A. 
That is my impression, sir. 

Q, What date does he begin payment there ? — A. May 1. 

Q. On June 9 you were still writing to the Commission asking if the 
man could not be appointed. This shows, therefore, that at the time 
you were writing the man had been appointed and was receiving pay 
over a month before you had any permission from the Commission. 
Your letter of June 9 shows that at that time he was not in any excepted 
position. It is clear, then, that for six weeks at least he was drawing 
pay, or you were drawing pay for him while he was not in an excepted 
position and had been illegally appointed. — A. Let me see, sir. " It is 
all explained by the fact that I had been certified three times ; I was 
restored to this list and immediately received an appointment by order 
of the Commission, but was never appointed to a civil service or classi- 
fied position before or after or since said order " 

Q. It is his own statement. Let me point out to you according to 
this statement he could not have been restored to the list until aftei 
June 9 and he was appointed on May 1. He was not appointed to 
an excepted position until after June 9. On what date do I under- 
stand Mr. Paul stated he was appointed — he says he was appointed and 
declined at once ? 

The Witness. I did not say at once, but I think 

Mr. EoosEVELT. Mr. Chairman, what date did Mr. Paul say he had 
been appointed and declined ? 

The Chairman. He said he was appointed and declined to accept 
the position. 

The Witness. My recollection is simply this: That Mr. Gumming 
was api^ointed a stamper and declined the position, but was not dis- 
missed at all. This correspondence was had with the Commission. 
That is my impression as to the facts. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Let me ask you right there what you mean by the fact that he 
was appointed and declined the position but was not dismissed. What 
do you mean "? — A. The question is we waited for the Commission to 
determine that fact in the case and give it consideration. 

Q. What do you mean by declining the position ? 

The Chairman. Let me ask this question right there : What was the 
necessity of writing to the Commission at all if this man was not to be 
appointed to a classified i)lace and had not been so appointed, but had 
been appointed by you to an excepted position. What was the use of 
having this correspondence with the Commission at all ? — A. I will go 
into all that if the Committee desires. 

By Mr. Eoosevelt : 

Q. Let me ask first what you mean by saying that he was appointed 
and declined the jjosition, and yet was not dismissed. If your words mean 
anything, if the man was appointed and declined the position, he is not 
now in the service. Is not that what you understand by declining the 
position ? — A. I think, sir, he took the matter under consideration 
further sometime. 

Q. He took under consideration; took what, the ofiice under consider- 
ation 1 — A. Took the position. 

Q. Now, as I understand Mr. Paul's words here, they were that he was 
appointed but declined the position, but was not dismissed. Now, what 
that means, I do not know. — A. That is not what 1 said or intended to 
say, sir. 

The Chairman. It may be perhaps what you did not intend to say. — 
A. He was offered the position of a stamper. I think the Commission 
itself can answer this question quite as well as I can. Of course I have 
IK) r('(t()ll('(!t ion. (lisfinf.Mv. 



302 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

The Chairman. Yoa have stated everything as nearly as you can 
recollect f — A. Yes, sir; there was no impropriety in it 5 the more you 
investigate it the more you will find no impropriety. 

Mr. EooSEVELT. You have nothing to say in explanation of the fact 
that he was appointed May 1 and was paid steadily on at the time 
you wrote us here, and as you state he had declined the position of 
stamper, and he in his affidavit says that he never was, never held the 
position, while as a matter of fact he was being paid nearly two months, 
possibly more, in a classified position ? 

The Chairman (to the witness). Do you want to make an explana- 
tion ? — A. Nothing, but I think the records of the Department and the 
office of the Commission, in my opinion, together with the affidavit, will 
clearly explain the entire question involved. I can not recollect the 
special circumstances of any one case of a very non-essential appoint- 
ment, certainly not for several years. 

Mr. Webster. I called your attention on Tuesday to the statement 
you made to me in Milwaukee, which was to the effect that you ap- 
pointed him to this position and then suspended him from that position 
pending the report from Washington, intimating to me very clearly or 
gave me to understand at the time, that he was not in office in that in- 
terval, while this report from the Post-Office Department hows that he 
is certified there as being continued. I want you to explain that. 

The Chairman. Did you say so to Mr. Webster at that time when 
they made the examination ? — A. 1 gave him the impression when he 
was there, that previously to the pending question which arose as to 
the x)ropriety of the appointment that he was held on 

Q. Was he suspended ? — A. ISTot substantially, not in an offensive 
sense ; that the appointment was held until the matter could be deter- 
mined. 

Q. How does it happen that you paid him at that time ? — A. I have 
explained that all to the committee once, I think. I can not say posi- 
tively, but possibly he was one of those persons who being entitled to ap- 
j)ointmeut, and the committee having determined that he was entitled 
to an appointment at that time, he was also entitled to a compensation. 

Mr. Roosevelt. Whether he was suspended or not ? — A. Yes, sir. 
I think it is very much like a Commissioner going out for a month on 
his ranch and still drawing pay. We have those instances. 

Mr. BoATNER. You think his position ought to be retroactive, that 
the pay becomes retroactive 'S 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I now desire to make a statement. 

The Chairman. Yery well, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, just 
as we were leaving in June, the loth of June as I recollect, for inspection 
of some post-offices in Chicago and other places, Mr. Lyman called my 
attention and that of Mr. Boosevelt to the fact that there were serious 
charges against the postmaster at Milwaukee, and explained why it 
was not acted upon before that tiaie and that it would be well for us to 
include Milwaukee in the trip. We were very busy and investigated 
three offices as I recollect, including Chicago. The morning of the day 
on which we were to leave for Milwaukee I got the statement of Mr. 
Doyle and report of Mr. Webster, all this mass of papers which have 
been submitted, and attempted as well as I could to get at their 
contents. I recollect, I know I read the first statement of Mr. Doyle 
and report of Mr. Webster, but I do not think I had time to read any- 
thing else when I left for Milwaukee. We called on Mr. Paul at his 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTICATION. 303 

office and examined him as to the whole matter of incorrect appoint- 
ments in his office. I remember very well what occurred. Mr. Koose- 
velt would take Mr. Paul's statement and read from it and ask his ex- 
planation. Mr. Paul would occasionally glance at it, putting on his 
glasses, but always putting it aside and stating, " You will have to 
see Shidy about that ; I do not know anything about it." Mr. Eoose- 
velt stated, *' I am reading this statement, Mr. Paul ; we are not talking 
of Dr. Shidy, but of what you did. Why did you make this appointment, 
why did you make that appointment," and the invariable reply was, 
" You must ask Dr. Shidy about that." In the course of the examina- 
tion I think that afternoon (we examined him one afternoon and one 
morning), I asked with a definite purpose in view which 1 will explain 
if the committee desires it, " Mr. Paul how long have you served ? " 
and the reply was, " My time is out or my term is out. I am simply 
waiting for my successor to qualify." The next day we. examined him 
again. 

The Witness. I think it would make a good deal of difference whether 
I said my time was out or tliat my term was out. I have granted, 
Governor Thompson, and I grant it was very possible for the Commis- 
sion to misapprehend the fact. I find no fault with the Oommissionj if 
I have, I withdraw any complaint against the Commission in the con- 
struction of that language. I stated what the language was and the 
purport of it and almost the precise words as I remember it. I do not 
see any occasion why the testimony has been important, for on the 
basis of their understanding they made the second supplementary report. 
It is a fact that has passed and which can not be remedied, and the Com- 
mission can not remedy that now. I do not find any complaint against 
the Commission making any number of reports if the Commission thinks 
it their official duty, whether they make it on one question or another. 
That is my view. 

Mr. Thompson. The next morning we concluded the investigation 
and went to Grand Rapids to investigate the post-office there. That 
evening, in the hotel at Grand Rapids, Mr. Roosevelt approached Mr. 
Lyman and myself with a rough draught of a report of Mr. Paul's case. I 
objected to signing the report and we had a discussion about it. I took 
the position, in the first place, that the letter which was just introduced 
in evidence, and to which we referred fully in our supplementary report, 
would explain perhaps some irregularities in the transfer of eligibles 
from one list to another. Of course it could not explain the irregular 
appointments and could not explain other irreguhirities except that 
point. Secondly, I had not as far as I have been able to observe, thought 
that Mr. Paul had been influenced by political considerations. There 
seems to be no evidence of that kind ; and thirdly I stated he is out of 
office, and what was the use of shooting at a dead duck, what was the 
use of making up a case against a man out of office, why should he be 
brought before the bar of pubhc opinion in this way. I stated if he 
could be removed after what has been done I would not object very 
much to signing the report. Mr. Roosevelt handed me the report and 
said, " What will you agree tof I took it and made some material alter- 
ations in it. My recollection is now I struck out one of two sentences, and 
I know I altered several. Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Lyman went over that 
amended report, and they afterwards both said that they could sign 
that. We came to Washington and certified the report to the President 
and Postmaster-General. 

The Witness. And to the Associated Press. 

Mr. Thompson. Oh, yes, to the Associated Press. We wanted them 



304 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

to know it. Then Mr. Paul came out with a statement, which I think 
was stated to me by him, some j)arts of which he has omitted. In that, 
though he stated distinctly that he had told the Commission, he con- 
tradicted us positively ; that he had not told the Commission that his 
term of office was out, Ijut he had given up the exact date at which it 
expired, and he could prove it. I immediately said if that was the case, 
if he had any unexi^ired portion of the term to serve, why, it was the 
duty of the Commission to report it to the President and the Post- 
master-General for gross violations of the law, and upon that a rej)ort 
was prepared and signed by all three of us. 

By Mr. Stone : 

Q. In regard to one question. You say you expressed it as your opin- 
ion, in a conversation to which you have alluded, held with Mr. Eoose- 
velt, that Mr. Paul was not influenced in the violation or advising vio- 
lations of the civil service law by political reasons. — A. I said as far 
as we had any evidence; we had no proof. 

Q. Do you think so now ? — A. I have no evidence of it, sir. 

Q. What motive, then, did you understand actuated Mr. Paul in vio- 
lating the civil service law ? — A. I will tell you frankly ', I think he was 
governed by personal considerations. 

Q. You mean he made appointments for personal motives, personal 
desires ? — A. Or to oblige his friends. That, however, understand me, 
Mr. Stone, was an inference which I drew. There was no i^ositive proof, 
and I have never seen it till Mr. Paul's statement here ; I never saw any 
proof that there was. He said yesterday, in regard to the appointment 
of this man Keaveny, that Judge Jenkins asked him to give considera- 
tion to Keaveny's name. That is the first evidence; I had personal 
evidence of it. I will say I suspected at the time, but the proof was 
not such as to justify reporting him to the President for it. 

Q. It did not make the basis of your report ? 

Mr. Thompson. Not at all. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Thompson, I would like you to state for 
the information of the committee and in order that they may under- 
stand at this point that the rule which was enforced while Mr. Paul was 
postmaster, which prohibited the postmaster from having knowledge of 
the eligible list, and made it a violation of the rule if he should see this 
list at any time, that your Commission has chan-ged this rule and the 
eligible list is now in fact published as soon as the people pass their 
examination and it is posted up in every post-office with the percentage 
they receive, and the postmaster and the public has full knowledge. 
This Commission has changed that rule to that effect, as I understand it. 

Mr. Thompson. It was changed by the present Commission very 
soon after Mr. Eoosevelt and myself took the oath of office. I have 
been always of decided opinion that while there was some objection to 
making the list of eligibles public, there were much stronger objections 
to keeping it secret, and therefore I advocated earnestly making it 
public, aud my colleagues were unanimously of that conclusion and the 
lists were made public. 

Mr. Stone. Do you think any harm resulted from Shidy's publish- 
"ng that list? 

Mr. Thompson. Except the violations of the rules. 

Mr. Stone. I will say no actual harm. 

Mr, Thompson. No, no actual harm. 

Mr. Stone. He merely did what you have since authorized. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 305 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, but it was a violation of the law. 

Mr. Lyman. On this point it seems to be assumed that it is true that 
Mr. Shidy published a list in the newspaper. 

. The Chairman. That has been testified to. I merely asked this ques- 
tion so the committee would understand, because I always thought my- 
self it was an unnecessary thing to keep the eligible list from the post- 
master, and I learned this morning as a matter of fact they changed 
the rules, and it was proper to bring it out because we are investigating 
the system as well as these charges. 

Mr. Stone. In addition, outside of the mere violation of a rule of law, 
there was no harm then according to the theory of the Commission at 
this date if a postmaster examined the list of eligibles in the book on 
the register. 

Mr. Thompson. I do not think so, sir ; I think he was prohibited from 
doing so. 

Mr. Stone. I know he was i3rohibited. 

Mr. Thompson. Distinctly prohibited. 

Mr. Lyman. I wish to make a point there. I should say there was a 
greater harm in the postmaster examining the list unless the public had 
the privilege of examining it at the same time. 

Mr. Thompson. Of course. 

By Mr. Hatton: 

Q. After you read the report of Messrs. Doyle and Webster that Mr. 
Lyman gave you, did you make up your mind from the testimony in that 
report there was sufficient ground for the removal of the postmaster and 
Mr. Shidy ? 

Mr. Thompson. I did not read it at the time, I only knew 

Q. But you have read it since? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it your opinion now there was sufficient evidence contained 
in that report to have removed Mr. Paul and Mr. Shidy? — A. Ample. 

Q. Did Mr. Lyman give any reason why he let the matter remain for 
eight or nine months without making any report to President Cleve- 
land so as to give the President an opportunity of removing these 
wicked men? Has Mr. Lyman discussed the matter with you? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What was his opinion? — A. As I remember he told me that Mr. 
Oberly went out of the Commission about the time of the report of 
Messrs. Webster and Doyle, and he had no opportunity to confer with 
him, and that he could not get Mr. Edgerton to attend to it. 

Q. Did he give any reason why he did not do so when he was the 
sole Commissioner? — A. I do not recollect that he did. 

Q. When he was not hampered in any way? — A. I remember the 
time, but I do not remember his saying anything about it. 

Q. Did he ever call your attention to this letter of Mr. Graham, sec- 
retary of the board at the time he was a member of the board? — A. He 
mentioned it in our report, sir. 

Q. I mean at that time? — A. No, sir, he never went into Graham's 
case at all, but said ii. was very damaging testimony there in Milwau- 
kee. 

Q. When the Commission went to Milwaukee did they know that the 
time of Mr. Paul's term had expired? — A. I knew nothing of it then. 

Q. You did not know that when you left here ? — A. I never have 
known except from learning from him. 

Q. Then the Commission really went to investigate an office when 
they did not know anything about when the term of the i:)ostmaster ex- 
pired ? — A. Entirely so, but I presumed it had e xpired. 
3117 20 



306 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By tbe Chairman : 

Q. I want to ask this question : The fact that the postmaster was 
supposed to have access to the eligible list at that time did not gov- 
ern you in your recommendation for removal? — A. I must say, sir, that 
the fact that he did have access to the eligible was an evidence of a vio- 
lation of law. 

Q. But that was not the only point on which the Commission recom- 
mended his removal ? — A. No, sir. Mr. Paul was asked this morning 
whether Johnston and Fahsel had been retained in that post-office on 
that board *? That was a subject about which my colleagues and myself 
conferred as soon as we came from Milwaukee as to what we should do. 
In order to explain to the committee how these boards are appointed, I 
will state they are appointed as a matter of fact on the nomination of 
the postmasters, for this reason, that these offices vary so in the char- 
acter of work assigned to the clerks, and the Commission not knowing 
any of the force of the postmaster on the books to be put upon the 
board of examiners 

The Witness. Upon the nomination of the postmaster ? 

Mr. Thompson. I will state the fact. We usually wrote a letter of 
this purport : There is one or more vacancies existing upon a board of 
examiners at your office. You will please give us several names from 
which to fill these vacancies, and we desire to have your views as to who 
shall be on the board. 

The Witness. What is the law, the exact language of the law ? 

Mr. Thompson. I can not quote exactly the law. 

The Witness. It makes a great difference. 

Mr. Thompson. Then after consultation — we consulted of course by 
letter as we can not go to every postmaster in the country in the cJas- 
sifled service — we stated this in regard to the ijost-office at Milwaukee : 
We can not make a new appointment there now because we must con- 
sult Mr. Paul, and I for one was not willing to take any name which 
he advised in the matter ; I was not willing to consult him after what we 
discovered to be there — but that we must wait until the new postmaster 
came in, and then consult him. As soon as the new postmaster did 
come in, we consulted with him and he made the nominations, and we 
removed Johnston and Fahsel, stating distinctly in our letter to the 
postmaster and them that they were removed for their misconduct in 
appointments — we removed them for their connection with the frauds 
committed in that office. 

The Witness. Gentlemen, I made an open i)ublication, reported 
right to the commission that I would concur in the appointment of any 
man suggested by the Commission of the entire force. 

Mr. Thompson. That is my recollection that you did, but of course 
the committee understands that no man in the post-office except John- 
ston and Fahsel could possibly be selected for the examiniug board 
without consultation with the postmaster. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. I entirely concur in almost all that has been said 
by Governor Thompson, but there are two or three things I did that 
he did not. For instance, my attention was first called to this mat- 
ter by Major Webster. Major Webster called my attention to these 
reports stating that he had gone up there and that the postmaster was 
guilty of gross misconduct, and he ought to be removed, and that that 
was the worst case he had ever seen. 1 then spoke to Mr. Doyle aboufc it 
and he also said the postmaster was guilty of gross misconduct, of a 
gross breach of law, or some such term. 
The Witness. On the evidence of Shidy. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 307 

Mr. EOOSEVELT. It had nothing to do with the evidence of Shidy. 
This statement is based on the records of your office. I then, two days 
before I went up there, began to read over the report. I read it care- 
. fully through on the train on the way to Cincinnati, from Cincinnati to 
Indianapolis and Chicago, and I read through all the papers, and I 
made up my mind that Paul was guilty beyond doubt unless he could 
explain away his own evidence and the official records. We found that 
Shidy had testified to the wrong-doing, that Johnston testified that 
Shidy kept telling him all about the wrong-doing, but he would not 
take any interest in it ; that Fahsel had stated he did not know anything 
about the thing one way or another. We did not want to have to try 
Mr. Paul on the evidence of Johnston or Shidy at all, and we agreed to 
examine him and make our report on the administration upon his own 
statement and upon the analytical statement of the records and upon 
what he could say in explanation thereof. The letter of Mr. Graham 
submitted in evidence here this morning was submitted to me, the let- 
ter alluding to the transfer of eligibles from one list to the other. Mr. 
Paul's own statement was he understood that letter; that the only 
qualification was that the eligibles should be transferred in their order 
according to average; I have read that and the report is in evidence. 
Had he acted only according to what he himself said was his interpre- 
tation of that letter we would not have made such a report as we did ; 
but, as a matter of fact, he did precisely the things that he himself testi- 
fied the letter did not authorize. 

The Witness. What had I to do with that letter; was the trans- 
fers 

Mr. EoosBVELT. I think the letter does not excuse him at all, simply 
because the examining board does not affect Mr. Paul one way or an- 
other. By Mr. Paul's own statement he would have nothing to do with 
that letter. 

The Witness. I never saw the letter until Mr. Webster came here. 

Mr. BoATNER. I think it would be better if you did not interrupt the 
witness who is making his statement. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. 1 beg your pardon ; but you say you did not see the 
letter 

The Witness. Until Mr. Webster came to my office. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. He also testified before Major Webster that he had 
taken these eligibles from the higher list and told Dr. Shidy to include 
them in the next certification in the lower list. 

The Witness. No, sir ; that I have disputed in my testimony, and it 
is entirely false in the sense in which 

Mr. Eoosevelt. Those are his wor.ds. I do not care to get into an 
argument, Mr. Paul, now. We went up to Milwaukee to the post-office, 
and we saw Mr. Paul on that afternoon, and we saw him the next morn- 
ing. We examined also Shidy and Johnston, and Fahsel we tried to 
find, but he had gone away we were told. Also, Fahsel, in the testimony, 
had simply said, "I do not know anything about it." 

The Witness. I have his affidavit on that point. 

Mr. Eoosevelt. We have his testimony here on that point, too. So 
we only examined Johnston and Shidy and Mr. Paul himself. As Gov- 
ernor Thompson has testified to here, I read to Mr. Paul from the only 
two exhibits on which we based our report against him, and I would 
pass them to him and let him read them. He put up his glasses ; no, it 
was this way; I think he looked at it like this [holding the paper some 
distance oft] and then pass it back and say, " You had better ask Dr. 
Shidy about it." He never answered a question "we put to him directly; 
we never got a direct yes or no. 

The Witness. Are you giving new testimony ? 

Mr. Eoosevelt. I would like to state this, Mr. Paul, and I would 
prefer to be allowed to give mv own testimony. 



308 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

The Chairman (to the witness). If you have anything to say in reply 
to this you will have ample time to state it. 

Mr. KoosEVKLT. We examined Mr. Paul. We never got a direct 
answer from him in reply — a yes or no. We very rarely got an answer 
that had any logical reference to the question put. 

The Witness. Simply because you were questioning me about Shidy's 
duties, not my own. 

The Ohaieman. Mr. Paul allow Mr. Eoosevelt to go on and make his 
statement and then you can make yours afterwards. 

Mr. BoATNER, He wants this testimony to be in a parallel column. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I would be very glad to have it put in in that manner. 
As I stated, we could not get a direct answer and we could rarely get an 
answer having any reference to what the question was. Generally his 
answer was, " You have got to ask Shidy ; this is an affair of Shidy's." 
We would say, "We are not talking of Shidy. We wish to know about 
your part in these certifications. How did you happen to choose the 
man for whom each certification was garbled, and Paul would answer 'I 
do not know anything about it, you will have to ask Shidy.'" 

The Witness. No, sir; I gave you a written answer that it was ray 
right to choose a man from the certification, and that nobody had the 
right to ask me why. 

Mr. Roosevelt. But I am speaking of this one time. We would ask 
you if you could explain, and you would say, " No." We would ask you 
why, and we would get the same answer, that we would have to ask Dr. 
Shidy, and often Paul would not really answer at all ; he would make a 
long, profuse statement. We became convinced very shortly that Paul 
could make no explanation of his wrong-doing. Well, now, I believe you 
want me to tell you exactly what we believed and what our views were. 

The Chairman. 1 would not waste any 

Mr. Roosevelt. We became convinced that Mr. Paul was not telling 
the truth. We then left him, and went to makeup the report. I felt 
quite strongly that whether Mr. Paul was out or not we ought to recom- 
mend his dismissal. It seemed to me a peculiar, gross, and flagrant 
breach of the law. 

The Witness. I think you came there with that impression before. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I recommended that 

The Witness. I think you came there with the purpose to see if you 
coald not find a basis for recommending a removal. Mr. Roosevelt, allow 
me to ask you 

Mr. Boatner. I think the witness ought to be allowed to make his 
statement. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I am perfectly willing to be interrupted, but I do 
not care to be interrupted 

The Chairman. Let the witness state it as briefly as he can. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I think I stated that Mr. Webster and Mr. Doyle 
reported that he should be removed, but we had to see if he could make 
any explanation of these reports, but Paul failed to make any explana- 
tion of the specific acts of wrong-doing with which he was charged. 
We then went into consultation about the matter, and, as I stated, I 
wanted to recommend his removal at once, and drew up a very sharp 
report, but Governor Thompson stated, as stated here, that we did not 
want to shoot dead ducks, and he 

The Witness, I am not so dead yet. 

Mr. Roosevelt. That is the opinion of the governor — I am not- 

The Witness. You may ask my opinion of him. 



CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 309 

Mr. EoosEVELT. We then drew up this report on the statement that 
Mr. Paul had made to us, basing it on the fact he had stated he was out 
of office. We had found no evidence that Mr. Paul had been in- 
fluenced — let me make a correction of what Governor Thompson said. 
I had found in my opinion sufficient evidence that Mr. Paul had been 
influenced by "party considerations." Mr. Stone asked Governor 
Thompson then what he thought was Mr. Paul's motive. If I may be 
allowed to state, Governor Thompson has stated his opinion and I 
would like to state what my opinion was. My opinion was that Mr. 
Paul's case was a perfectly familiar thing in New York, where this ex- 
planation has been made to me : "Oh, Mr. Eoosevelt, you know there 
are no politics in politics; " that is, a man in politics has no party affilia- 
tions. You will findinNew York plenty of offices where Democrats or 
Eepublicans have no control, where the subordinates, representing dif- 
ferent organizations, control it from having influence in that district, 
Eepublican and Democrat, Tammany Hall, County Democracy, stal- 
wart, half-breed, or whatever it is, indiscriminate. That has been my 
impression. ISTow Mr. Paul had a great influence with certain Eepub- 
lican politicians there, and he was commonly reported to have helloed 
a certain Eepublican politician to Congress, and all that. That seemed 
to me a more than adequate explanation of his motive, but we did not 
go into that at all in our report. We did not base our report on that 
line, on anything he had done for political reasons ; we did not allude to 
that in any way or consider it in our report. I did not regard that 
Mr. Paul was peculiar to one party in the least. 

Now, we came back and we found then that we had been misled as 
to the date of Mr. Paul's removal, and we then drew up our final report. 
Now, I want to say this, m regard to this which has been brought out. 
The governor said that letter would excuse a portion of the misdeeds. 
That letter, of course, would excuse the mere transfer of an eligible 
from one list to another, and accordingly, as we implicitly declared in 
our report, we never counted that against him at all. The letter con- 
strued, as Mr. Paul states himself it ought to have been construed, 
was no excuse for transferring an eligible from one list to another 
without transferring the man above him, without transferring all ac- 
cording to their grade. It did not look for a moment to transferring 
the man who had passed at 70 as a carrier, when there were a whole lot 
above him on a lower list, and have him certified up with the stampers 
with that grade, at 94 and 95, and have the man appointed as a stamper 
and immediately afterwards promote him to be a carrier again. Of 
course, that was a clear evasion of the law, and the law gave no authority 
for anything of that sort, as construed by Mr. Paul himself. 

I would also like to state, in answer to the question of Mr. Stone the 
other day, in reference to these certifications — so called certifications. 
You recollect asking if it was not technically irregular if a man would 
be certified up on a little bit of paper with three names. It is, for this 
reason. It is exactly as if you had requested your agent in business to 
keep the books, and you should ask him how you stood and he should 
answer you, " It is no use for me to do that ; you have lost $2,000," and 
when you press him he would say, " I have kept these records on scraps 
of paper, and I have lost them ; there is no book, but you have lost 
$2,000." The books are part of the necessary record. These are the 
only things by which we have means to judge anything. I will say this 
much, it is possible, thoroughly i)ossible under the old system of certifi- 
cation, that the work may have been done honestly, but it is certain if 
there had been any intention to commit fraud, it would have been done 



310 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

in just this way. Mr. Paul, for iustance, in stating the matter the other 
day, testified herie that they had lost one certification ; that there was no 
certification at all ; that that so happened on a certain occasion. 

The Witness. l^To ; I stated that Shidy had lost it. 

Mr. Roosevelt. That Shidy had lost the certificate; that Shidy had 
done it. 

The Witness. Shidy had done it. 

Mr. Roosevelt. That Shidy had lost this certification; that there 
was no record to the appointment ; that they had no record whatever to 
show that Mr. Paul complied with the law. We have only his own 
statement that he complied with the law, no record of any sort. When 
Mr. Webster and Mr. Doyle went up there they caught Mr. Paul and 
the examining board in the act ; they caught a man appointed a month 
before and no certification made. Shidy could not recollect any certifi- 
cation and Mr. Paul could not say 

The Witness. Is that testimony, Mr. Chairman ; what is this ? 

Mr. Roosevelt. I am stating this as the ground on which we made 
our report- 

The Chairman. He is testifying in regard to what the Commission 
made their report. 

The Witness. You are permitting statements here that might take 
me three days more to contradict. The Commission has had a fair 
opportunity to make statements. I object to anything that is new 
being offered. 

Mr. Roosevelt. This is nothing new. We have a right to make 
these statements. 

The Witness. This is a distortion of the facts in a large degree. 

Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Paul has had. all of his own time and about 
half of mine. I think he has had a fair chance to be heard. I will sim- 
ply say that the records of these so-called certifications of appoint- 
ments we had before us. I mean by so-called certifications the false 
certifications which we put in evidence here. These certifications on 
their faces showed that names had been brought by Mr. Paul and fur- 
nished and refurnished. It is stated that he only looked at them once 
or twice, but they were showed to him. By all that evidence it was 
proved clearly, without a shadow of a doubt, beyond an}' possibility of 
a doubt, that this wrong doing was between the board of examiners 
and the appointing officer or postmaster ; that the examining board 
could get no benefit from it, and that the postmaster who had control 
of these men entirely must be and could not but be the party to blame. 
Accordingly we made our report, and that is what you have before 
you. 

Mr. Stone, One question of this witness, looking to the defects in 
the system. I will ask you the question I asked Mr. Paul, if it is not 
a fact that a postmaster situated as he was at Milwaukee with a board 
of local examiners who vrere employed in his office, and who depended 
largely upon him for their retention in their iilaces, and were in most 
cases a majority of that board are in accord with him, is it not a fact 
that the examination and certification can be so manipulated without 
any real violation of the law, or such violations as could be reached, 
in the event he saw proper to do so ? 

Mr. Roosevelt. They can not without a real violation of the law. 
If you will look at the concluding sentence of our report, we in this 
case make a recommendation we should be allowed to choose examin- 
ers outside of the service entirely. 

Mr. Stone. Examiners receive no compensation. 



CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. 311 

Mr. EooSEVELT. We could get men to serve voluntarily. 

Mr, Stone, I will ask you this 

Mr. Roosevelt. Do you object to my going on and answering your 
direct question just now ? What you say is perfectly true. A post- 
master under the present condition can coerce the board, as we be- 
lieve Mr. Paul did, into helping him violate and evade the law, but it 
is extremely difficult for him to do it without leaving traces of it, and 
he has got to face the fact that this wrong doing will be found out 
sooner or later, as we believe we found out Mr. Paul ; and he will then 
be removed for his conduct and the punishment of one person will, we 
believe, bave a great deterrent effect upon others. There is no doubt 
that since these facts about Mr. Paul have been brought to light, it will 
deter others more than before, because they know what to expect from 
us. 

Mr. Stone. Is it not a fact it did occur — I believe there is no impro- 
priety in my speaking to you about it, as I think it came to niy knowl- 
edge through some remark of yours — that during the last administration 
that a postmaster at Baltimore made changes amounting in the aggre- 
gate to 90 per cent., turning out Eepublicans and putting in Democrats, 
for instance, without committing such a violation of law he could be 
reached? 

Mr. Roosevelt. That would lead me into a much longer explana- 
tion than I would care to 7uake now when we are still on the case of 
Mr. Paul. That is intimated in the public report, and I intended to 
bring that either before the Commission — but I will explain if you will 
allow me 

The (Chairman. I think we had better let it go to another part of 
the examination. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I can answer you right there if you will allow it. 

The Chairman. This is a general question and it has nothing to do 
with these charges. 

By Mr. BoATNER : 

Q. I understood you to say, Mr. Roosevelt, that it was improper 
under the rules, at the time this removal occurred in Milwaukee, for a 
postmaster to know anything of the eligible list except the name cer- 
tified to him by the board of examiners. 

Mr. Roosevelt. It was, sir. 

Q. But since that time the rules are that the eligible list is public ? 

Mr. Roosevelt. Yes^ sir. 

Q. ISTow I want to ask this. Is the postmaster, who is generally the 
appointing officer, under obligation to make selection from the three 
names which are presented to him? 

Mr. Roosevelt. They aye, except in the case that all three are en- 
tirely unfit. He may then send a letter to the Commission detailing 
the reasons why he thinks them unfit; and they, if they choose, can look 
the matter up and report them. He may give 

Q. Wait a minute ; let me ask you this : The law, as i understand, 
requires the examining board to make examination without reference 
to the position which the parties are expected to fill ? 

Mr. Roosevelt. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then you say the appointing officer has the right, after the exam- 
ining board has sent up three or four names which they ..declare, after 
examination, are eligible and are fit for these positions it is still in the 
power of the appointing officer to say that they were wrong, that the 
parties are not tit for the position ? 



512 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. If you will look at one thing. Probably you do not 
know that part of the examination is the six months' probation trial of 
the appointee. His appointment is not made final until he has six 
months' trial, so as to see practically how he works ; so by our examina- 
tion we believe that in the vast majority of cases they get the best man 
in the service, but we do not say they do so always. We think there 
are certain parties, although they pass they will not do well, and it is 
to provide merely for such accidents. It is an accident that very rarely 
occurs, not once in five hundred times, that three such men go up and 
one of them would not be chosen on account of the inefticiency of all 
three. 

Q. I was not speaking of that particularly. I was speaking of any 
appointing officer. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. ISTow, sir, if you will let me give an example per- 
haps it will be made clear to you. Under Mr. Bayard the clerks of the 
Department of State were examined separatelj'^, and it proved to be a 
very high special standard of clerks, a special standard of qualifica- 
tions for these clerkship. They were to be proficient in foreign geogra- 
phy and to be proficient in certain kinds of diplomatic history and the 
like. These qualifications in the men were what the Department of 
State then needed. Under the present administration there suddenly 
occurred there a demand for men having good handwriting. They 
wanted for these particular positions men having very good handwriting. 
Well, we know the men that know the most about foreign geography 
and foreign history often do not have good handwriting, and in conse- 
quence of his making suddenly that additional qualification we had to 
send a couple two or three times with certifications who were returned, 
saying they did not have good enough hands for this purpose. 

Q. Then whenever names were sent the examination was passed and 
the names appear on the certification ? 

Mr. EOOSEVELT. Yes, sir. 

Q. What I want to get at is this : I understand you to say that the 
appointing officer can not arbitrarily reject the name sent up ; that he 
can only do so for cause, and that the cause must be assigned "? 

Mr. EOOSEVELT. A cause must be assigned. 

Q. Is there anything in the rules, or in the law, which jjre vents 
the appointing officer from discharging a man after having been se- 
lected? — A. Nothing that is 

Q. Is there any check in the law against the arbitrary power of re- 
moval? 

The Chairman. In other words, can the officer remove at any time? — 
A. He can remove at any time. This case has never come up that I 
can recollect. 

Q. What is your opinion as far as the civil service law is concerned ? — 
A. Mr. Chairman, I would like to look up the matter first as to civil 
service law before rendering an opinion. 

Q. Are you not sufficiently conversant with it now to render an 
opinion ? — A. In every one of these cases that would come up 

Mr. BoATNER. Tou say you are not prepared to answer that question 
now ? 

Mr. EOOSEVELT. Whenever a thing happened like this, and came up 
to be decided, we would examine it, I will say, in order to see if it is 
perfectly straight. The theory of the law at present is — I think I ought 
to make this explanation possibly to clear up the question that has been 
asked — the theory of the law, as at present enforced, is that no check 
on removals is required at all except specific cases. A man is not 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



313 



allowed to be removed for refusing to be coerced in bis political opinion, 
etc, Now, I do not believe in that portion of the present law or rule. I 
believe that whenever a man is dismissed the appointing officer should 
be required to state in full, minutely, the reason why he has been dis- 
missed without giving him a chance to be heard in his own defense. 
That is what I believe; but that is in the present law, and neither Mr. 
Arthur, or Mr. Cleveland, or Mr. Harrison approved of having in that 
check on removals. It is deemed unnecessary. I do not know whether 
the former Commission approved of it or not ; but I say certainly, when 
I went to my colleagues, I certainly talked the matter over with Gov- 
ernor Thompson, and Governor Thompson considered me right about 
removals. We have now no authority on that point. 

The Chairman. I think these questions, of course, are very proper, 
but they will come up a little later, I suppose when we go into the sys- 
tem, and then we will probably have the Commissioners before us. 
This is a question that will lead so far that at present it is not neces- 
sary 

Mr. Roosevelt. I beg your pardon, sir. 

The Chairman. I think we may as well close this case now. 

Mr. Andrews. I think Mr. Paul ought to reply to Mr. Roosevelt. 

Mr. Paul. I do not wish to make a lengthy reply; if you will allow 
me a few 

Mr. Roosevelt. I would like to make one remark in conclusion of 
my statement to corroborate what Governor Thompson said about the 
examining board. There are two examinations in the post-office held 
a year ; one in August and one in February. The August one was 
held while Mr. Paul was still in the office, and it was our opinion that no 
change in the board would work any detriment at all while Mr. Paul 
was in office. The next examination was not held until February, and 
before that we requested the removal of what force was left in. 

The Chairman (to Mr. Paul). JS"ow state as briefly as you can what 
you wish to say. 

The Witness (Mr. Paul). I wish to state from the report being pub- 
lic in a very few days I wrote to the board ofcommissioners formally that 
the men they had charged with being unfit as members of that board 
and whose removals they had recommended, that is Johnston and 
Fahsel, that I would concur in any proceeding for changing the board 
that they might suggest. That covers that whole ground. They still 
remained in office, until recently. 

I wish to state further that in all my reference to transfers from a 
higher to a lower list that I had no other reference or supposition that 
such transfers should be governed otherwise than by the law which 
was established in regard to those taking precedence, but the Commis- 
sion seems to assume 

Mr. BoATNER. A person could not be transferred from a higher to a 
lower list unless he wanted to ? — A. No, sir ; it would be at his request. 
I wish to state further that Commissioner Edgerton — I should say Com- 
missioner Eaton — has given me his opinion as to the construction of the 
law of 1885 in accordance with my own practice or the practice at my 
own office by the local board as being correct. Commissioner Eaton 1 
would be very glad to have here as a witness if you can ; otherwise I 
state that as a fact. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I contradict it on what Mr. Eaton told me. You 
can examine Commissioner Eaton if you wish it. 

The Witness. I say I would be very glad to have him as a witness 
on the subject. I wish to state further Commissioner Edgerton has 



314 CIVIL - SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

given aM entirely different version of the retention of the testimony and 
report and his disposition in the Commission from that given by the 
Commission here. I think Mr. Edgertou ought to be a witness in this 
case. 1 wish to state further in regard to the reference by Commis- 
sioner Roosevelt 

The Chairman. I want to say to the witness here that Mr. Bdgerton 
was subpoenaed to this investigation, but has not appeared here on ac- 
count of illness. He will be here later. 

The Witness. I wish to state in reference to Commissioner Eoose- 
velt and Representative Van Schaick, of the House, that as to any 
motive, any political motive, in making these appointments with regard 
to any Republican and myself, I would be glad to have him appear here 
as a witness. I think he would be entirely willing to do so. I have 
not had anything to do with political manipulation by which any Dem- 
ocrat, or Republican either, was chosen to office while I was in this 
post-office. I wish to state further that I never presumed or supposed 
that I had anything to do with the construction of the law or of the rules 
of the Commission in making the certification. The presumption was 
that that local board was a part or representative of the general 
Commission, and I accepted its construction of the rules, as I believe it 
to be my duty to do. Mr. Roosevelt refers to a case where there is no 
record, in which he caught me in the act, he says. I wish to state as 
to that ease it was simply this, that the record of certification was 
omitted by the secretary on his books. The fact of the certification is 
in there. 

Mr. BoATNBR. You say it had been certified "? 

The Witness. I never made any appointment in my life that had not 
been properly certified as I understand, until first apj)roved by the 
local board. Commissioner Roosevelt asserts there is some testimony 
that I shared in false certification.. If there is any such testimony, the 
fact is that 1 never did share in any false certifications, as I understand, 
in any way whatever, not in false certifications at all. Sometimes mem- 
bers of the board would converse with me upon special certifications in 
case they had a question about the rules, etc., but not otherwise. I 
wish to say, further, that all this matter, the whole mass of testimony, 
at least the substance of it, as presented in the report to the Commis- 
sion, I am informed and believe was presented to the President of the 
United States, the only authority authorized to act in my case, either 
for removal or acceptance of resignation or appointment under the laws 
to the Constitution, and I also submitted to the President by his own 
permission, as I am informed by his private secretary, all the facts in 
the case as I knew them, with other testimony, and that he did not, as 
reported in the press nearly every day now, he did not remove me at all 
and never has, for which I am very grateful to him under the circum- 
stances. 

The Chairman. Mr. Lyman, now you make your statement, but 
please make it as brief as possitjle. 

Mr. Lyman. I will detain the committee but a brief time. I have 
heard Governor Thompson's statement this morning as to what took 
place at Milwaukee at the time the Commission was there. I have 
heard Mr. Roosevelt's statement as to what took place at the time. My 
own recollection of what took place agrees with these statements so far 
as they purport to state the facts, except this. It was stated by Mr. 
Roosevelt in his testimony this morning in calling Mr. Paul's attention 
to these charges during the conversation with Mr. Paul, as well as I 
recollect: "Mr. Paul, these are very serious charges and we wish to 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 315 

call your attention to them," or words to that effect. That is the only 
additional statement I desire to make. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I ought to have made that statement myself. 

Mr. Lyman. I do not wish to go into any general statement of con- 
struction this morning, as I suppose oral argument will be heard on the 
general aspects of these charges. I certainly have some statements I 
desire to make, based upon the testimony which has been given in refer- 
ence to these charges, but I do not wish to make this statement at this 
time. I have refrained from making argument as the case has pro- 
gressed supposing there will be an opportunity for argument based upon 
the testimony. 

By Mr. Boatner : 

Q. Mr. Lyman, I want to ask you one question. Are you able to state 
what opinion the Commission had formed upon the report of Major 
Webster and of Mr. Doyle, secretary of the Commission, before going 
out there to see Mr. Paul I 

Mr. Lyman. I am not able to state. I do not think the Commission 
had formed an opinion. 

Q. Had not formed a conclusive opinion ? 

Mr. Lyman. They had not formed a conclusive opinion before going 
to Milwaukee. That is my judgment. 

Q. The principal object of the Commission going to Milwaukee was 
to give Mr. Paul an opportunity to explain his irregularities and dis- 
crepancies which the records show, was it not ? — A. I think that is the 
only reason why they went there ; certainly they wished from personal 
observation and investigation to confirm or disprove the truth of the 
statement. 

Q. Was the examination which was held by the Commission when 
they reached Milwaukee more searching and full than the examination 
which had been already made by Mr. Webster and Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. Lyman. It went over that again. 

Q. Did it go over the same ground ? 

Mr. Lyman. Substantially the same ground. 

Q. Did they re-examine the same witnesses ? 

Mr. Lyman. They did re-examine the same witnesses except Fahsel, 
who was absent. 

Q. Did they reduce that testimony to writing I 

Mr. Lyman. No, sir. 

Q. You stated you examined Mr. Paul with reference to the discrep- 
ancy which the record shows ? 

Mr. Lyman. Yes, sir. 

Q. And in the judgment of the Commission Mr. Paul did not make 
any satisfactory explanation of these discrei^ancies and irregularities ? 

Mr. Lyman. That is my judgment and the judgment of the Commis- 
sion as announced in the report of the Commission. 

Q. And the Commission formed the judgment that Mr. Paul was 
actively concerned in the violations of law which you discovered ? 

Mr. Lyman. Yes, sir 5 that is certainly my conclusion. 

By Mr. Hatton : 

Q. During the eight or nine months you held this testimony taken by 
Messrs. Doyle and Webster, was any outside pressure brought to bear 
on you to induce you to formulate this report ? 

Mr. Lyman. No, sir. 

Q. To let Paul die with the Cleveland administration ? 

Mr. Lyman. No. sir. 



316 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Would it have been improper for imy outside person to have at- 
teijopted that ? 

Mr. Lyman. The party must be the judge of tbat. I should be the 
judge of my own action. 

Q. I have asked you to state it and 1 should like to have an answer; 
would it be a proper matter for an outside party to come to you in re- 
gard to testimony before the Commission, or to attemj)t to influeuce 
you in the time you should make a rei)ort ; would it be the i^roper 
thing for an outside party to come to you in regard to a statement of 
au examination that had taken place before the Commission? 

Mr. Lyman. As no such iuflaence was used, and as no such attempt was 
made, I do not know whether I ought to answer a question of that sort. 
It would be simply a matter of opinion. 

The Chairman. It would be a matter of opinion which any one has. 

Mr. BoATNER. You say no one went to you about a matter coming 
before the Commission, or before it came up for consideration by the 
Commission ? 

Mr. Lyman. Thousands of times. 

Q. Will you please state whether or not these charges, or rather the 
fact, elicited by Chief Examiner Webster and Mr. Paul were made to 
the President and Postmaster- General before the incoming of this ad- 
ministration? 

Mr. Lyman. Mr. Oberly stated to me that he had acquainted Presi- 
dent Cleveland with the situation at Milwaukee at the tinie of Mr. 
Doyle's first vjsit. That is the only basis of information I have on the 
subject. 

Mr. Stone. Mr. Oberly went over all that. 

Mr, BoATNER. I beg pardon, I was not here at the time and did not 
know that ground had been gone over. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Paul, do you desire to ask some questions ? 

Mr. Paul. Nothing more than this. Mr. Lyman, did you examine 
Mr. Shidy when there the last time ? 

Mr. Lyman. Yes, sir. 

Mr.'PAUL. To a considerable extent ? 

Mr. Lyman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Paul, Was that testimony in any way reduced to writing 1 

Mr. Lyman. No, sir. 

Mr. Paul. Was I in any manner ever furnished with a copy of this 
testimony so as to see it? 

Mr. Lyman. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. Paul. Until I saw the result of it in the public report. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I would ask to be recalled for a moment. 1 want 
to- 

Mr. Lyman. You were examined upon this testimony and analytical 
statement which has been frequently referred to. 

Mr. Paul.- You remember, Mr. Lyman, I was asked a multitude of 
questions in a very hurried manner in my ohice, and that I said you 
must ask Shidy several times, where it was a case where I did not con- 
sider the questions related to my personal duties. 

Mr. Lyman. I do not know what you considered. 

Mr. Paul. But did not, as a fact, these questions relate mainly to the 
action of the local board ? 

Mr. Lyman. They related to the whole matter of the appointment. 

Mr. Paul. But; largely and mostly to the action of the local board ? 

Mr. Lyman. To the action of the local board and the postmaster; one 
is involved in the other. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 317 

Mr. Paul. Is it not a fact, as you understand the rules, that the 
duties of the postmaster are limited very closely to the simple duty of 
selecting from certification ? 

Mr. Lyman. I think they Avere at that time, sir. 

Mr. Paul. I have not anything further. 

Mr. Stone. How long did Mr. Paul's examination last, Mr. Lyman ; 
how long were the Commissioners examining Mr. Paul in reference to 
these charges ? 

Mr. Lyman. They consumed nearly all oue afternoon and probably 
some of the next morning, probably part of the next morning. 

Mr. Stone. I refer to the examination of Mr. Paul himself. 

Mr. Lyman. Mr. Paul was before the Commission in the afternoon 
and on the followiug morning. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? I think a great deal of 
this is repetition, and we would like to get through. 

Mr. EoosEVELT. Will you let me introduce one statement which I 
forgot ? 

The Chairman (to Mr. Lyman). Have you anything further to say 
at this time ? 

Mr. Lyman. Not in this case, but I have some papers I wish to offer 
in evidence. 

The Chairman. In what case is that 1 

Mr. Lyman. In regard to my authority to act as sole Commissioner. 
I wisli to offer these papers and to state the contents of them. 

The Chairman. The contents may be stated, but tlie papers will 
show it themselves. 

Mr. Roosevelt. Before you go into this will you allow me to make 
one suiiplementary statement? 

The Chairman. Let us get through with this stateuiojit, then. 

Mr, Roosevelt. When I was on the stand I forgot n question Mr. 
Paul had called out. We intended in making our report, the reason 
the evidence of Mr. Shidy and Mr. Johnson was not submitted to Mr. 
Paul was because we intended to make no allusion to it whatever in 
our report. Our intention had been to make the report solely on Mr. 
Paul's own testimony and on the record, so as not to bring in conflict 
nor jeopardize Mr. Shidy's position with anything of the kind ; we did 
not intend to bring iu any allusion to Shidy's testimony. 

Mr. Paul. What your intentions were are not facts. 1 oi>pose 

Mr. Roosevelt. You have nothing to do with what I testified to • I 
am testifying to the committee. We intended to make no allusion to it 
at all. When we made the supplementary report Shidy had been al- 
ready dismissed, so we did not see any reason for not using his testi- 
mony,'; but we only used it in two cases where Johnson had corroborated 
it to us. Those are the only two cases, as you will find explicitly stated 
in the report as made, and I thinlc that if you will read the report you 
will see the answers there to many questions that had been put by us. 
I should say we examined Mr. Paul about nearly two hours one after- 
noon and something over an hour the next morning, as we explicitly 
stated in our report, and we examined him on the statements that had 
been given for this reason, to see it he could explain this evidence that 
had already been given ; we did not try to get any new evidence. 

Mr. Boatner. You did not declare what Mr. Shidy had told you ? 

Mr. Roosevelt. We did not inform him of anything Mr. Shidy told 
us, and we only used Mr. Shidy's testimony in making up the report on 
two points. 

Mr. Boatner. And Mr. Johnson's statement? 

Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Johnson testified to two cases which we under- 



318 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

took to put in our report; that is as to the fact that Mr. Paul, has as 
Shidy stated, forced them, or, as he said, merely advised them ; they 
merely corroberated such testimony; and the other case was as to the 
custody of the eligible record. These are the two cases and the only 
two ones where we used their testimony at all. We did not use the 
testimony a bit otherwise in making up our reports. 

Mr, Hatt©n. I would like to ask the Commissioner one question. 

The Chairman. I think we have gone into this far enough. 

Mr. Hatton. I have not seen that anybody on the other side has 
been retused to ask a question. I understood Commissioner Eoosevelt 
to say that they did not rely to a great extent upon Mr. Shidy's testi- 
mony. I am correct, I believe, to that extent, and I would like to ask 
how Mr. Shidy, that being fact, was entitled to a reward or an ap- 
pointment in a department here? 

Mr. Roosevelt. I have already gone over that in the Shidy case sev- 
eral times, but I will answer that if the committee wishes. 

Mr. BOATNER. I object to this question as being an argumentative 
question. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I have stated it several times to him before. 

The Chairman. I am going to rule this question out; I am not going 
to open the case again. 

Mr. Roosevelt. I would be glad to answer, but I have answered it a 
dozen times before. 

The Chairman (to the stenographer). You need not take this now. 

Mr. Lyman. I wish to submit these papers. 

The Chairman. Just tell what the papers are. 

Mr. Lyman. It is part of the first charge that I made a certain pro- 
motion in violation of the law, being sole acting Commissioner. I de- 
sire to ofi:er in evidence certain papers which will show in fall the actions 
that I took when acting as sole Commissioner. I have here the certifi- 
cates made by the secretary of the Commission that while acting as 
sole Commissioner I made not one promotion but three promotions and 
an original appointment. I promoted Mr. Holtz from a clerkship of 
class 1 to a clerkship of class 2, that I promoted Mr. Campbell from a 
clerkship of $1,000 to a clerkship of class 1, that I promoted Mr. Culver 
from class $900 to class $1,000, and that I appointed Mr. Swank to a 
clerkship of $900. He was appointed as stenographer and typewriter. 

Un the day that Mr. Edgerton was removed as Commissioner I en- 
tered upon the minutes of the Commission a statement to that effect, 
so that the records of the Commission show that he was removed on the 
9th of February and contained a copy of the order of the President 
removing him, with this comment made by myself as part of the record : 
"This action leaves the Commission with one Commissioner and two 
vacancies." That was the record made on the 9th of February. 

Mr. Stone. What year ! 

Mr. Lyman. 1889, the 9th of February. 

The Chairman. Do you desire to make any statement ? 
Mr. Lyman. That is all of that statement I desire to make, but 
there is another statement I wish to make. I wish to state the con- 
tents of these papers. The copy of this paper is simply to show that 
I assumed the functions of the Commission during this period when I 
was the only Commissioner. During this period, and the date will be 
shown by this paper, the Postmaster-General informed the Commission 
that certain post-offices had reached the number of 50 employes and 
were proper subjects for classification. I issued the necessary orders 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 319 

for that classificatiou of these post-offices and reported the fact to the 
President. 

Mr. Thompson. Which President "? 

Mr. Lyman. President Cleveland, on the 21st of February, 1887. On 
the 1st day of March I submitted to President Cleveland a certain 
number of requests made by the heads of Departments for examination 
for proDiotion under general rule three, section two, class 3. The rules 
require that these promotions should be made with the consent of the 
President on the recommendation of the Commission. 1 submitted that 
recommendation to the President on the 1st day of March and on the 
same day he approved them. On the 11th day od;' March, 1889 — these 
acts took place under President Cleveland 

The Chairman. Well ! 

Mr. Lyman. On the 11th day of March, 1889, I addressed a com- 
munication to the President of the United States, Mr. Harrison, stating 
that the railway mail rules had been approved to go into effect on the 
15th day of March ; that I would not be ready to put those rules into 
effect on that date for the reason it had been impossible to complete the 
necessary arrangements, and recommended that the date be postponed 
from the 15th day of March until the 1st of May. On the same day the 
President issued the necessary order approving this recommendation, in 
which occurs this statement : "Whereas it is represented to me by the 
Civil Service Commission, in a communication of this date, etc." On the 
16th day of April I submitted to the President of the United States the 
recommendation for the amendment of special departmental rule No. 1, 
which the President approved. On the 25th day of April I submitted 
a further recommendation to the President of the United States for an 
amendment of special departmental rule No. 1, which the President 
approved. The amendments have been inadvertently omitted, but the 
letters are here and I will file the amendments which were approved by 
the President. Thes<i papers show that I assumed and performed the 
most important acts which the rules require to be performed by 1 he 
commission with the knowledge and concurrence ot the President of 
the United States ; and I desire to make this additional statemeut, that 
on the day of Mr. Bdgerton's removal from office as Civil-Service Com- 
missioner, or possibly on the following day, or within a day or two, I 
called upon President Cleveland on official business and in the course 
of conversation that then ensued I raised the question of my authority 
to act. Some conversation took place on that question between Presi- 
dent Cleveland and myself, and I think I suggested if he had any doubts 
as to the matter of my authority to act for the Commission under the 
law that the question should be referred to the Attorney-General for 
his opinion. There the matter dropped as between President Cleve- 
land and myself and was never afterward referred to, and 1 have no 
official knowledge whether he referred the question to the Attorney- 
General or not, but subsequent to that time he did approve my official 
acts as Commissioner. 

By Mr. Hatton: 

Q. When was the first public notice given that the railway mail 
service had passed under the civil service law 1 — A. I do not know 

Q. You say it was to go into effect on the 15th of March ; that was 
the time President Cleveland 

Mr. Lyman. It was made public at once, early in the year 1889, the 
fact that the rule had been approved and would go into effect. 

Q. At the time President Cleveland went out do you know how 



320 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

many applications filed with the Commission had passed the examina- 
tion — had been examined 1 

Mr. Lyman. 1 can not state the number, but a very large number. 

Q. After the railway mail service passed under the law of the Com- 
mission did these early applicants get the benefit of their early appli- 
cation or not 1 

Mr. Lyman. They took the same — they had the same rights which 
were accorded to all applicants. 

Q. No; but were they served in turn and given the same rights? 
As I understand it there was a thousand or fifteen hundred applicants. 

Mr. Lyman. Let me state that the date of filing an application does 
not give a person any rights as to an appointment. It simply gives 
him the right to be examined at the earliest day fixed for an examina- 
tion. 

Mr. Hatton. Does it give them the right of examination ? 

Mr. Lyman. They were all examined at the earliest possible moment ; 
every one. 

Q. I understood there were one thousand or fifteen hundred applica- 
tions, and President Harrison extended the time of the operation of 
Mr. Cleveland's order. 

Mr. Ly'man. They were all examined; every one who presented them- 
selv(^s to the board of examiners. They were all notified to appear, and 
were all examined who oifered themselves. 

The Chairman (holding up a letter). Do you wish this letter put in 
evidence, this letter, Mr. Paul ? 

Mr. Paul. I think the letter should go up in evidence in the matter 
of the Cummings case. 

The Chairman. The case is now closed as far as relates to the charge 
made by Mr. Ewart against the Commission, and the committee will 
meet on Monday next at the usual bour to decide what further course 
to take under the resolution of the House. 

Thereupon the committee adjourned. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



J21 



_ Exhibit A. 

rCertificate No. 665.1 

United States Civil-Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C, Septemher 17, 1889. 
Sik: Upoa your request No. 638, for the names of three eligibles under the civil-serv- 
ice act and rules to a vacancy now existing in class $900, clerical examining force, Office 
of Bureau of Pensions, Interior Department, certification is hereby made that the follow- 
ing-named persons are eligible to the vacancy specified, and are now entitled to this cer- 
tification under Departmental Rule VII: 



Names. 


State. 


Examination. 


Grade. 


Post-office address. 


Everard C. Brown ... 
Wm W Watson 


Nebraska 


Special examiner ... 
do 


Per cent. 

72 

71 
71 


410 Boundar\ street, Washing- 
ton, D. C. 
Rensselaer, Jasper Countv, In- 




Connecticut... 


do 


diana. 






Washington, D. C. 



You are authorized, under Departmental Rule VII, clause 3, to select and appoint one 
or more of the eligibles thus certified.* 

John T. Doyle, Secretary. 
The Secketary of the Interior. 

*The Commission requests that the examination papers sent with this certificate be re- 
turned within three days, in order that the applicants not selected may not lose oppor- 
tunity for appointment in other Departments. 



[Certificate No. 66G.] 

United States Civil-Service Commission, 

Wasldngton, D. C, September 17, 1889. 
Sir: Upon your request No. 638, for the names of three eligibles under the civil-serv- 
ice act and rules to a vacancy now existing in class $900, clerical examining force, Office 
of Bureau of Pensions, Interior Department, certificate is hereby made that the Ibllow- 
ing-named persons are eligible to the vacancy specified, and are now entitled to this cer- 
tification under Departmental Rule VII: 



Names, 



State. 



Examination. ^Grade. 



Post-offlce address. 



Thomas Mitchell 

Wm.F.R. Phillips... 
Stephen W. Morris... 



Connecticut., 

Virginia , 

Ohio 



Special examiner ... 

do 

do 



Per cent. 
71 



805 Tenth street, northwest, 

Washington, D. C. 
Signal Oflice, Washington, 
B.C. 
Ironton, Lawrence County, 

Ohio. 



You are authorized, under Departmental Rule VII, clause 3, to select and appoint one 
or more of the eligibles thus certified.* 
Very respectfully, 

John T. Doyle, Secretary. 
The Secretary of the Interior. 

"The Commission requests that the examination papers sent with this certificate be re- 
turned within three days, in-order that the applicants not selected may not lose oppor- 
tunity for appointment in other departments. 



3117- 



-21 



322 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 



[Certificate No. 677.] 

United States Civil-Sekvice Commission, 

Washington, D. C, September 17, 1889. 
Sir: Upon your retiuest No. 638, for the names of three eligibles under the civil-serv- 
ice act and rules to a vacancy now existing in class |9Q0, clerical examining force, Office 
of Bureau of Pensions, Interior Department, certification is hereby made that the toUow- 
ing-named persons are eligible to the vacancy specified, and are novp^ entitled to this cer- 
tification under Departmental Rule VII: 



Names. 


State. 


Examination. 


Grade. 


Post-office address. 


Thos. Mitchell 

Wm. F. 11. Phillips 


Connecticut ... 


Special examiner ... 
do 


Pel- cent. 
71 

70 


805 Tenth street north- 
■west, Washington, D. C. 

Signal Office, Washington, 
D.C. 

505 West Twelfth street 




do 








Wilmington, Del. 



You are authorized, under Departmental Rule VII, clause 3, to select and appoint one 
or more of the eligibles thus certified. * 
Very respectfully, 

John T. Doyle, Secretary. 
The Seceetaby of the Interior. 

*The Commission requests that the exami:iation papers sent with this certificate 1)e 
returned within three days, in order that the applicants not selected may not lose op- 
portunity for appointment in other Departments. 



Exhibit B. 



[Exhibit R.1 

Communitation to the Civil Service Commission from Hamilton Shidy, secretary of the Board 
of Examiners at the post-office, 3Iilivaukee, Wis., explanatory of his conduct in connection 
with the administration of the civil-service laivs at that office. Dated September 10, 1888. 

Milwaukee, Wis., Septemher 10, 1888. 

In view of testimony having been taken by the Civil Service Commission tending to 
show irregularities in appointments and mode of certification in Milwaukee post-office, 
it is but just to me that I be given opportunity for stating how this state of things came 
to be allowed without apparent protest on my part. 

About the 20th day of May, 1885, Mr. George H. Paul was appointed to take the place 
of Mr. H. C. Payne, postmaster, and an offensive partisan. In the ten days which inter- 
vened between the appointment and taking possession of the office, much caucusing be- 
tween the present postmaster and certain members and followers of his party occurred, 
having reference to the bestowal of places in the Milwaukee post-office; and resulted in 
bringing in with Mr. Paul on the 1st day of June, 1835, an almost entire new set of of- 
ficers. Old and faithful employes, some of whom had served more than a quarter of a 
century and had grown up in the service, were thrown out of employment without even 
a single day's notice. 

According to Mr. Paul's statement these men were not removed for political or per- 
sonal reasons; they were entered on the records "resigned." Amongst those whose re- 
moval was so contemplated was myself, H. Shidy, superintendent of the registry divis- 
ion; and my place was promised to a young tailor, who prol)ably had never seen the in- 
side of a post-office, much less was familiar with its workiniis and requirements. I closed 
my work on Sunday, May 31, 1885, turned over everything in my possession to Mr. 
Paul, and was left in entire ignorance as to whether it was desired that I slionld conduct 
the work of the department the following day or not. However, I went to work as 
usual, and for some reason the induction of my successor did not at once take place; and 
I was given to understand, after some days, that it would occur July 1, 1885. In tlje 
mean time an examination was held June 30, 1885, with 142 applicants, making over 600 
papers to be marked, Mr. Paul showed the greatest impatience at the necessary delay 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 323 

in getting papers. I worked late at night, and Sunday, and all day 4tli of July, and 
on that day he insisted on taking the papers and selecting half a dozen of those which 
appeared best from which to make an immediate appointment. 

The first certificate and appointment from this examination was made July 6, 1885, 
and was followed by others on the 7th, 8th, and 9th of July, 1885. I had at this time 
a desire to retain my place, which I felt sure he would see could not be satisfactorily 
filled by one who had no knowledge or experience of post-office matters, when he him- 
self came to know more of such matters. And such indeed proved to be the case, lor 
when the time for delivery of my place arrived he declined to make the change. Had 
I in the mean time opposed his methods, or thrown obstacles in the way of the attain- 
ment of his wishes, he would certainly have merely informed me that my successor was 
appointed. He abused me considerably over the markings of " Eviston's " papers, who, 
he said " was the best man on the list," and who "had the whole Third ward behind 
him." Tried to induce me to change his marking, but the work was so very poor that 
no pretext could be found. He was with difficulty induced to wait awhile before ap- 
pointing him. 

One of his first official acts was returning to me his supply of printed forms of " Re- 
quest for a certification," with the remark, "I have no use for these things." And I 
very soon discovered he had ' ' no use ' ' for any provision of civil-service law. He had, 
from the first, kept copies of the list of eligibles, and when the Commission sent a cir- 
cular (July, 1886) positively and explicitly prohibiting this I was so sure that it could not 
be enforced that I made it the subject of discussion before the board July 8, 1886. (See 
record, book p. 4.) I then presented the postmaster with the only copy of the circular 
furnished me. After reading it, he said to me in a very significant manner, "You can't 
prevent me keeping copies of the lists," and of course I didn't try. He had frequently 
asked me in regard to appointments which he had already made, and which were not 
yet provided for by certification: "What are you going to do about it? This man is 
appointed and sworn in, and must be provided for." 

It was discovered long ago that "no man can serve two masters;" yet in spite of this 
well-known truth, the Civil Service Commission have been engaged in an attempt to 
force such state of servitude on their local boards, and especially on the secretary thereof, 
who is directly the servant of the postmaster from whom he gets his appointment and 
his pay, and also at the same time is made the servant of the Commission, which loads 
him with work, all of which is extra and requires much labor outside of business hours, 
and for which they pay nothing. To which master is it reasonable to suppose such serv- 
ant will cling; to the one who pays him or the one who does not? I have repeatedly 
urged to every one connected with the Commission who has come in my way, that the 
members of local boards should not be Government employes. 

Three courses only were open to me under the circumstances. 

(1) To resign my position on the board. This I talked of on several occasions with 
Mr. Johnson, president of board, and even wrote out my resignation, but it was with- 
held, as we both thought it would prejudice my position in the oQice, as of course I would 
be asked for reasons. 

(2) To call the attention of the Civil Service Commission to the manner in which the 
rules were being violated. This would have been to invite an investigation and conflict 
with the postmaster, with loss of place. 

(3) To let matters take their course until such time as the Commission should discover 
of its own motion the existence of irregularities and deal with them as they saw fit. This 
I have done. I have been loyal to my chief, and have done the best I was permitted to 
do for the Commission, being heartily in sympathy with the reform movement. 

If I have acted from a selfish motive it is because I have found by forty years' experi- 
ence that my interests are only looked after when I look after them myself, and I am not 
called on to immolate myself and family without even the hope of advancing in any way 
the interests of reform thereby. 

To any one who is disposed to criticise harshly the action of the secretary in this mat- 
ter, I would simply say, " Put yourself in his place," and perhaps you will see things 
very different. 

Yours resj)ectfully, 

Hamilton Shidy, 

Secretary. 
To Civil Seevice Commission. 



324 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



Exhibit C. 

United States Civil Service Combiission, 

WasJdngton, July 17, 1889. 
The President: 

In making our first report on the management of the Milwaukee post-office, in so far 
as it was affected by the civil-service law, we were influenced by the statement made to 
us by the postmaster himself to the effect that his term of office had already expired, 
and that he was merely "holding over" because his successor had not yet been ap- 
pointed. This proves not to be the case, and we accordingly report more at length. 
Our examination was made by the entire Commission, and the conclusions reached w^ere 
agreed to unanimously. The postmaster was given a full hearing. Every statement 
and alleged fact on which we base our report was laid before him and every opportunity 
offered lor him to explain them. His assertions recently made, to the effect that he did 
not know the accusation made against him and was condemned without a hearing and 
without being given a chance to explain every charge, are simply gross misstatements. 
In making our report we did not consider a single fact which had not been laid before 
him. 

- In the spring of 1888 certain irregularities in the working of the Milwaukee post-office 
were reported to the Commission, and in consequence the secretary, Mr. John T. Doyle, 
was sent to Milwaukee in July to make inquiries. His report (see Exhibit L) showed 
such a condition of things that the chief examiner, Mr. William H. Webster, was sent 
the following September to make a full and exhaustive inquiry. The chief examiner's 
report (Exhibit X) disclosed gross and repeated violations of the law. Accordingly, 
shortly after the Commission was reorganized, all three commissioners went to Milwaukee, 
as we deemed the accusations of such importance as to warrant an investigation by the 
full board. Except in two important cases we did not try to get at any new facts; we 
Simply examined Mr. Paul to see whether he could disprove the .statements or give any 
satisfactory explanation of the charges made in the two preliminary reports. He en- 
tirely failed to do so. 

That there has been crooked work in the office is admitted by all. It can be shown 
to exist by a brief examination of the analytical statements compiled from the certifica- 
tion book, and of the pencil memoranda from which the certifications were actually made 
(see Exhibits A and D). The only question is where the responsibility lies. We ex- 
amined the secretary of the local examining board, Hamilton Shidy, and the chairman, 
J. B. Johnson. Shidy is admitted by all to have done the work of the board, the other 
members doing little save assisting in marking the papers and attending occasional for- 
mal meetings, held at long and irregular intervals. 

Shidy testifies that he was compelled by the postmaster to give the latter free access 
to the lists of eligibles, although such access was at that time strictly forbidden; and "he 
further testifies that the postmaster, knowing those who were eligible, as well as their 
standing, appointed whomsoever he chose, and then forced him (Shidy) to torture the 
lists and certification book so as to produce a certification which should bear the ap- 
pointee's name (see Exhibit C, pp. 2, 4, 5, etc.). This the postmaster denies. Johnson 
(see Exhibit E, pp. 2, 3, 4) testifies that he knows nothing personally of the matter, but 
that the secretary, Shidy, consulted him from time to time, telling him that the post- 
master had access to the records, or insisted upon having men certified out of place, and 
the like. Johnson resolutely shut his eyes to what was going on, making no inquiries 
to test the truth of Shidy's statements; apparently he thought that by so doing he could 
avoid all responsibility in the matter. But this is a wholly improper position. He 
admits being told of the various matters, and being continually consulted by Shidy; he 
was derelict to his duty when he failed to satisfy himself as to the work that was done 
by the board of which he was chairman, and is as much to be blamed for conniving at 
what went on, as Shidy, on his own statement, is to be blamed for yielding to the post- 
master's demands. It is impossible for a man to shilt the responsibility from his shoul- 
ders in the manner that Johnson has tried to do. Shidy testifies (see Exhibit R) that he 
yielded to all the postmaster's demands because he knew that a refusal to do so would 
haveentailed the immediate loss of his place, and thereforeof his meansof support, andthat 
he even consulted the board as to what course he should follow, bitterly lamenting the 
fact that to obey the commands of the Commission, of which he was nominally the ser- 
vant, would force him into immediate antagonism to the postmaster, who could turn 
him out of his position at pleasure. Shidy and Johnson are equally to blame; but of 
course, if their statements are true, an infinitely heavier load of blame rests on the 
postmaster. 

In drawing up our report we have based our conclusions almost entirely on what is 
shown by the official records and by Mr. Paul's own statement (Exhibit B). We have 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 325 

never used Shidy's uncorroborated assertions, although in certain instances we add them 
as ofieriug; the only possible explanation of some of the "gerrymandering" of the certi- 
fications. But in two important instances Shidy is explicitly backed up by Johnson and 
here we have accepted the statements of the two men, borne out, as they are, by other 
facts. 

Shidy and Johnson testified before us, in Mr. Paul's presence, that on one occasion he 
examined the papers of an applicant, which papers they had already marked, and forced 
them, against their own judgment, to remark them, giving a lower grade. Mr. Paul's 
explanation was that he had not forced them to alter the marks, but he admitted that he 
had expressed great dissatisfaction with the marking and that in consequence it had been 
changed. Shidy in the presence of both Johnson and Mr. Paul, as well as of the three 
commissioners, stated that the reason for their changing the grade of the unfortunate ap- 
plicant was to get him out of the way of another man whom the postmaster desired to 
appoint; Shidy's words were, substantially, "You remember, Mr. Paul, that we changed 
the marks as a last resort because we had exhausted every expedient to get the lists as 
you wished." 

Again Mr. Paul states that he did not examine and never had in his possession the 
lists of eligibles; whereas Shidy states that they were time and again taken to the post- 
master's room, and Johnson testified before the Commission that he had himself seen 
them there. Mr. Paul's testimony on this point is not always very coherent, however, 
for he qualifies his denial hy remarking that he "does not think " he ever examined the 
books "with reference to any appointment except upon application of Dr. Shidy him- 
self" (Exhibit B, p. 2), and adds (p. 31) that he was "unavoidably aware of the state 
of the register, of the order in which the names stood, before making appointments," 
and that he does "not think that the register was regarded as strictly private." (See 
also pages 6, 7, and 8 of Exhibit B, for. other admissions of his familiarity with the lists. ) 
Shidy testifies that when in July, 1886, the Commission issued a circularpositively pro- 
hibiting, the postmaster from having co]3ies of or knowledge of the lists of eligibles, ^le 
promptly called the attention of the postmaster thereto, and received for reply, " You 
can't prevent my keeping copies of the lists." 

Mr. Paul, in an interview in the Milwaukee Sentinel of June 30, which may be con- 
sidered authentic, as he forwarded it with a letter to a member of the Commission, ad- 
mits this charge of Shidy's, and explains it by stating that he considered the prohibi- 
tion of the Commission "simply humorous, " in view of the fact that on one occasion the 
entire list had been published in the newspapers, which was certainly extraordinary. 
From all of which it may be safely asserted that Mr. Paul kept well acquainted with the 
exact condition of the eligible register, of which he was properly supposed to be igno- 
rant. 

He was enabled to take advantage of this knowledge owing to the very peculiar and 
improper construction he put on a letter from the Commission, written September 18, 
1885. This was in reply to a request for a special examination for the lowest grade of 
employes, that of stampers, it being stated by the Milwaukee board that the list of eli- 
gibles for such places was exhau.sted. The letter from the Commission granted the re- 
quest for a special examination, and also stated that the men who had taken the higher 
examinations, as clerks of carriers, could be certified to the lower places, and for this pur- 
pose transferred to the lower register on their request. The permission thus given was 
very ill-advised, as it was not clearly expressed that it applied only to a single emergency. 
But little harm would have resulted, however, had Mr. Paul obeyed the evident intent 
of the letter, which he certainly clearly perceived, for he himself says (Exhibit B, p. 11) 
that the letter provided that eligibles should be transferred from the higher to the lower 
grades "in their order, according to average, and provided their grade was sufficient to 
entitle them to compete in the lower grade." 

Instead of doing this, however, Mr. Paul has chosen any one he wished from the 
higher lists and then made the secretary certify him immediately with three unfortu- 
nates from the lower lists, who were simply put on to complete the certification, thereby 
diminishing their own chance of appointment, as if not appointed after three certifica- 
tions their names were properly di'opped. Mr. Paul explicitly testified (Exhibit E, p. 
12) that he himself was in the habit of picking out a higher-grade eligible who had con- 
sented to the transfer and then telling the secretary to " include such person in his next 
certification for the lower position," especially if "there was an absence on the list cer- 
tified to me of proper parties," this last being a most extraordinary admission, tanta- 
mount to saying that the postmaster illegally declined to take any man from a given 
certification unless he chose to do so. Thus Mr. Paul explicitly testified before the chief 
examiner that he himself, and not Shidy, the secretary of the board, chose out the eli- 
gible from the higher list who was to be put on the next certification for a lower posi- 
tion. But the first day he appeared before the Commission he equally explicitly testified 
that it was Shidy who always made the choice and that he himself knew nothing about 



326 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

it. The following day he was confronted with the stenographic report of his statement 
to the chief examiner, whereupon he calmly admitted that it was true, and that he did 
make the choice himself; and in a newspaper interview has since again stated that he did 
not. This may be accepted as a fair test of Mr. Paul's marvelously treacherous mem- 
ory. It seems certain Mr. Paul habitually usurped the functions of the board, and 
forced it to act in a manner entirely subservient to his wishes (see Exhibit X, pp. 2, 
3, and 4), although he denies this. 

Shidy testifies that it was, and Johnson testifies that Shidy kept telling him of Mr. 
Paul's usurpations and dictations; and the fact that Johnson never dared interfere nor 
try to find out the truth of the matter is proof positive that he likewise dared not thwart 
Mr. Paul's wishes. (See, also, his testimony about remarking the paper and about the 
lists of eligibles. ) Moreover, in Exhibit Y are given the rough draughts of letters in Mr. 
Paul's unmistakable handwriting, fiom which the board afterwards made smooth copies 
in corresponding with the Commission, showing that he interfered in what were prop- 
erly purely the duties of the board and practically dictated the latter"s correspondence. 
In the records of the board (see Exhibit C, p. 26) there is a very remarkable entry, unan- 
imously agreed to, to the effect that the board would enforce the decision of the Com- 
mission "so far as laid in their power." This proviso could only refer to the overruling 
actions of the postmaster, as shown by the context, for it referred to the circular forbid- 
ding him to have access to the records. It shows that the whole board knew the facts 
as well as Shidy did, and makes it clear that its members are all equally to blame; and 
if the postmaster could by any possibility be considered blameless, Mr. Shidy's two col- 
leagues must still share the guilt equally with him. Their sole excuse lies in the guilt 
of the postmaster. 

Mr. Shidy testifies that Mr. Paul made his appointments first, and then forced him, 
Shidy, to "gerrymander" the listsof eligibles so as to produce a "stuffed " certification 
which should contain the name of the already appointed man. Mr. Paul practically ad- 
m<ts that he did this in certain cases (see Exhibit R, pp. 5 and 6), stating that the re- 
quisitions on the secretary " have always been made as a rule '' piior to the appoint- 
ment or designation of a man, and that the certifications were made to him " in writing 
or verbally " and he " thinks " they were made " prior to appointment, with possibly 
an occasional variation," when "the secretary would modify the certificate." In other 
words, Mr. Paul admits that Mr. Shidy's accusation is true as regards certain cases; it is, 
therefore, merely a question whether Mr. Paul acted illegally and improperly in all in- 
stances or only in some. 

A peculiarly flagrantinstancefamongmany othersalmostasbadjof Mr. Paul's conduct 
in choosing at will any higher class eligible, when there were others of the same class 
with inferior averages to the one chosen, may be found in Exhibit A, certifications 54 
and 55. On January 20, 1888, a certification was made for stamper which included the 
names of four carriers; Mr. Paul very improperly refused to take any names from the 
certification: but February 15 another certification was made, for the same place, and 
the lowest of the four carriers certified on January 20 was again certified, this time with 
three stampers, to the exclusion of his companions of higher grade, and was appointed. 

For such conduct there can be but one explanation, that given by Shidy, who admit- 
ted that the first certification was canceled and the next rearranged "for convenience, 
to bring the desirable men — the men who were wanted — into, proper position." As 
Mr. Paul himself canceled the first certification, and chose out the man to be appointed 
from the second, he of course stands responsible for this piece of dishonest gerrymander- 
ing. But this is not the full measure of his misconduct in this particular. The carrier 
(named Keaveny) selected from the second certification lor stamper on February 18, 
1888, had actually been appointed stamper on December 8, 18S7, two and one-third 
months before, and had been promoted to be carrier February 1, 1888. In other words, 
Mr. Paul selected the man whom he desired out of the carrier listi, passing over carriers of 
higher average, appointed him as stamper, and then promoted him to be carrier without 
even waiting for the "stuffed" certification from which he was nominally appointed. 
A more outrageous piece of official misconduct it would be hard to imagine. 

It is, however, so far from being unique that it is simply a sample of the misdeeds 
shown in Exhibit A, the analytical statement compiled from the certification book and 
other records. It is the.se records, even more than Mr. Paul's own statements, that con- 
demn Mr. Paul. They show the grossest irregularities, which are set forth at length in 
Exhibit A, and need only be referred to or summarized here. (See, also, Exhibit Y, the 
supplementary testimony of Shidy, with quotations from the records.) 

One man, Wigraan, was examined for a clerkship April 14, 1887; he passed very low, 
just under 70 per cent., yet Mr. Paul immediately aj)pointed him carrier, and after- 
wards, on May 6, a certification was made to cover his appointment. Again, one Ta- 
bert, examined as carrier, was certified as stamper on April 14, 1888, having already 
been appointed on April 1, and two months afterward was promoted to be carrier. (A 
worse case still has recently been reported by Shidy, but the Commission has not yet 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 327 

bad time to verify it. Accordiiia; to this statement one A. L. Trnmpfwas appointed 
March 1, 1888, and began work March 2'S, although not even examined until March 17, 
the papers not being marked and listed until the 80th, nor the man himself certified un- 
til April 14.) On a number of occasions the postmaster refused to make any appoint- 
ment at all from certifications, returning them as void, which was entirely imjjroper: 
How flimsy were the pretexts on which these declarations of " void " were made may be 
gathered from the fact that what was heM to render one certification void was not held 
to invalidate another, when it contained the name of a man the postmaster wished to 
appoint (see Exhibit X, certifications 29 and 31). Again, the postmaster would oft«n 
cancel a certification on the pretext that a man was a non-resident, and yet in one in- 
stance he afterwards appointed to office one of these same non-residents (see Exhibit X, 
certification 25). Sometimes these void certificates were employed to use up a candi- 
date's right to three certifications, sometimes not. It is difficult to discover any reason 
for such methods of making and refusing to make appointments irom them unless we 
accept the statement of Shidy that they were " cooked " so as to get men who were not 
desired out of the way (see pp. 5 and 6 and portions of Exhibit A). In a number of 
instances (see Exhibit A, pp. 2, 3, 4) but one name was certified. Again, it is impos- 
sible to see why the postmaster should have accepted such a certification if honestly try- 
ing to obey the law; the only possible explanation seems to be that given by Shidy, to 
the effect that these persons were already " appointed, and more names would not have 
altered the case at all." 

Men were continually singled out from the higher lists and certified on the lower, 
although there were plenty of others on the higher lists with superior averages to the 
favored ones, who were likewise willing to be certified for the lower places. Other men 
were certified for positions on lower lists without their consent and for no conceivable 
reason unless it was to juggle with the certifications. Once alter a man had been certi- 
fied three times and not chosen, and was therefore no longer eligible, the postmaster coolly 
proceeded to appoint him. (For a discussion of this case, and of the utterly inadequate 
explanation of the postmaster see Exhibit A, pp. 9 and 10). Nor was this a solitary in- 
stance of the kind (see Exhibit A, p. 15). Sometimes the certifications would be so 
twisted that of the entire regular list for the lower grade not one would be appointed 
(see Exhibit A, p. 14). Appointments were frequently made prior to certification in 
any form (for the last instance see Exhibit A, p. 21). Even alter the visit of Chief 
Examiner Webster last fall the postmaster continued to appoint men prior to any certifi- 
cation (see Exhibit Y, Shidy's statement, corroborated by the formal request for certifi- 
cation, dated January 16, 1889). 

In short, the official records show beyond possibility of dispute that the lists of eligi- 
bles were twisted and garbled in almost every conceivable manner in order to produce 
swindling certifications whereby certain men could be rejected although entitled to ap- 
pointment, and other men appointed although having no rightful claim to the chance. 
In order to make use of these swindling certifications it was absolutely necessary that 
two parties should be privy to and cognizant of the whole transaction, viz, the party 
making the certification, that is, Dr. Shidy and perhaps his colleague-, and the party 
making the appointment, that is, the postmaster, Mr. Paul. Unless both parties were 
equally guilty, it follows of necessity that either Dr. Shidy was the tool of Mr. Paul, or 
Mr. Paul the tool of Dr. Shidy. For Mr. Paul to plead innocence is equivalent to his 
pleading imbecility, for no sane man could have made appointments from a succession 
of such certifications without perceiving their character, and it is quite incredible that 
he could by mere chance have picked out from each certification the very individual to 
favor whose choice it was designed. Mr. Paul can not plead ignorance of the certifica- 
tion book, for his own signature, as is right and proper, stands therein opposite the name 
of every man appointed (see Exhibit X, p. 10). Mr. Paul alone benefited by the 
crookedness of the certifications, for he alone had the appointing power; there could be no 
possible object in Shidy's conduct unless it was fear of thwarting the wishes of his su- 
perior officer. The conclusion is irresistible that Mr. Paul is responsible for the wrong- 
doing. He has grossly and habitually violated the law, and has done it in a peculiarly 
revolting and underhanded manner. His conduct merits the severest punishment. His 
further continuance in the office would be a great misfortune, and we recommend his 
immediate removal. 

As for Shidy, he, equally with his colleagues Johnson and Tahsel, was certainly guilty 
of grave misconduct in permittiag the board to become the tool of Mr. Paul; but he did 
it under fear of losing his place if he rebelled, being wholly in the power of Mr. Paul; 
and unlike his two colleagues, who were equally guilty with himself, he had tlie manli- 
ness to come forward and tell what had occurred when the chance was given him. It is 
manifestly unjust to visit him with any punishment not also inflicted on Johnson and 
Tahsel. The whole history of the case emphasizes in the most striking manner the ur- 
gent need of having at least some members of every local examining board entirely re- 
moved from the influence or dictation of the appointing officer. While all the members 



328 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

of the board hold their places at the will of the appointing power there will be perpetual 
danger that the latter will seek to exercise undue influence over the former. Provision 
should be made by which at least some salaried members could be added to every local 
board from outside sources, so that it should contain members removed beyond the pos- 
sibility of influence from the appointing oificers. 

We have the honor to be your obedient servants, 

Chas. Lyman. 

Theodore Roosevelt. 

HuQH S. Thompson. 



Exhibit D. 



Before this investigation goes further I wish to make a statement in reference to the 
testimony elicited on Saturday in regard to Mr. Shidy. I have nothing further to say 
as to the wisdom or unwisdom of seeking to protect a man who abandoned his wrong- 
doing and at the risk of his place turned Government witness. I thought then, and I 
think still, that it was my duty ais a Government officer to protect a Government wit- 
ness. As to that policy the committee will judge. But there is another point which I 
wish to make perlectly clear before leaving this branch of the subject. The testimony 
of the Superintendent of the Census and of the Postmaster- General might give the im- 
pression that I had concealed from them the iacts in regard to Shidy when I sought 
their assistance in protecting him. If such an impression was given by Mr. Porter he 
amply corrected it when recalled to the stand, as appears by the record. The impres- 
sion of concealment given by the Postmaster-General if it exists may still remain. It 
is, however, impossible that the Postma'^ter-General could have meant to convey such 
an idea, for he was officially cognizant of all the facts in regard to Shidy by the report in the 
Paul case; the report which he assigns as in part the basis of his action in determining 
on the removal of Paul. I quote from the report. This sentence occurs at the begin- 
ning of the report: 

" Shidy testifies that he was compelled by the postmaster to give the latter free access 
to the lists of- eligibles, although such access was at that time strictly forbidden. He 
further testifies that the postmaster, knowing then who were eligible, as well as their 
standing, appointed whomsoever he chose, and then forced him (Shidy) to torture the lists 
and certification book so as to produce a certification which should bear the appointee's 
name. 

A little further on the report says: ' ' Shidy testifies that he yielded to all the postmas- 
ter's demands because he knew that a refusal to do so would have entailed the imme- 
diate loss of his place, and therefore, of his means of support. * * * Shidy and John- 
son were equally to blame, but of course if their stp,tements are true an infinitely heavier 
load of blame rests on the postmaster. ' ' 

Again, toward the close of the report: 

' ' In order to make one of these swindling certifications it was absolutely necessary that 
two persons should be privy to and cognizant of the whole transaction, namely, the party 
making the certification, that is, Dr. Shidy, and perhaps his colleagues, and the party 
making the appointment, that is, the postmaster, Mr. Paul. 

"Unless both parties were equally guilty, it follows of necessity that either Dr. Shidy 
was the tool of Mr. Paul, or Mr. Paul the tool of Dr. Shidy. 

-X- * * ■!<- * * * 

"As for Shidy, he, equally Avith his colleagues, Johnson and Fahsel, were certainly 
guilty of grave misconduct in permitting the board to become the tool of Mr. Paul ; but 
he did it under fear of losing his place if he rebelled, being wholly in the power of Mr. 
Paul : and unlike his colleagues, who were equally guilty with himself, he had the 
manliness to come forward and tell what had occurred when the chance was given him. 

"It is manifestly unjust to visit him with any punishment not also inflicted on John- 
sen and Fahsel. ' ' * 

It may be added that any one who has read the report, even in the most cursory man- 
ner, can not fail to understand not only the evidence given by Mr. Shidy before the Com- 
mission, but the exact nature of Mr. Shidy's violation of law; for Mr. Shidy's name 
occurs in. almost every sentence of the report, and his testimony both as to his own wrong- 
doing and that of his colleague is an integral and inseparable part of it. 

As the charge against Mr. Paul involved of necessity collusion with Mr. Shidy, it is 
impossible to read the report in reference to the former without understanding precisely 
both the testimony and defense of the latter. 

The Postmaster- General was also cognizant of the facts in regard to Johnson, who was 
equally at fault with Shidy, who did not confess, but who is still retained in office by the 
sufferance of the Postmaster-General. There was nothing inconsistent, therefore, in seek- 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



329 



ing to protect and <^ive a living to the man who repented and confessed liis 'wrong-doiug; 
we were merely trying to put him in a position where he would not be very much worse 
off than his equally guilty colleague who had not repented or contessed. Again, at the 
time I saw the Postmaster-General in regard to Shidyallthe facts in reference were mas- 
ters of public notoriety, for I had stated them in two published interviews and they had 
been commented on. The Postmaster-General, I am sure, did not mean to convey the im 
pressiou that anything was concealed from him in regard to Shidy, but in case such a mis- 
take should arise I desire to say that I not only concealed nothing in regard to Shidy from 
any one, but all the facts in regard to him were publicly and officially known at the time 
of my suggestion of him for ofSce and at the time of his appointment. Not a fact has 
been elicited during this investigation as to Mr. Shidy's conduct while in oiSce that we 
did not clearly bring out in our official report of last July, which was not only formally 
brought to the attention of the Postmaster- General, but was published broadcast in the 
press. 



Exhibit E. 

Report of certifii-ations for the montli of February, 1888. 

United States Civil Service Commission, 
Classified Postal Service, Board of Examiners, 
» Post-Office at Miltoaukee, Wis. 

KoTE. — At each monthly meethig of the board the secretary will submit the report of certifications 
during the preceding month for the perusal and signature of all the members of the board present 
at the meeting. The report, together with the monthly report of appointments and the report of 
the transactions of the board, will thereupon be forwarded to the Commission. 



Certification No. 55,'aated Feb. 18,1888, J 

grade of stamper 1 

I 

f 

Certification No. 56, dated Feb. 18, 1888, I 

grade of stamper i 

r 

Certification No. 57, dated Feb. 18, 1888, J 
grade of stamper 

Certification No. 58, dated Feb. 18, 1888, 
grade of carrier , "j 

I 

Certification No. 59, dated Feb. 18, 1888, J 
grade of stamper , 

Certification No. 60, dated Feb. 18, 1888, J 
grade of stamper I 

Certification No. 61, dated Feb. 18, 1888, 
grade of carrier 



Names. 



Albert Klotz.jr 

Bruno Lasche 

Tlios. F. Keaveney 

■las. F. Keenan 

Bruno Lasche 

Jas.F. Keenan 

Patrick J. MoCormaek 

Mich. Cramer 

Bruno Lasche 

Jas.F. Keenan 

Marthias S. Kausch 

Patrick J. Reilly 

Chas. Cumming 

Louis Smith 

Wm.O.Gaulke 

Patrick J. Reilly 

Chas. Cumming 

Frank L. Koceja 

Frederick J. Weber .... 

Louis Smith 

Chas. Cumming ......... 

Louis Smith 

Wm. C.Gaulke 

Frank X. Mayer 

Wm. C.Gaulke 

Frank X. Mayer , 

John A.Koelsch 

Thos. J. Murray 



Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 



95.0 
94.5 

81.8 
75.7 
94.5 
75.7 
73.0 
68.0 
94.5 
75.7 
71.3 
70.8 
89.8 
87.6 
82.5 
70.8 
89.8 
69.0 
74.3 
87.6 
89.8 
87.6 
82.5 
71.1 
82.5 
71.1 
69.2 
67.7 



Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 



Selection 

and date 

thereof. 

(Write ' 

'"Selected" 

opposite 

name.) 



Selected. 

Selected. 
Selected. 

Selected. 
Selected. 
Selected. 

Selected. 



To the United States Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C. 

Post-office at Mlilivaukee, Wis. — Report of certificntions, etc., month of FeJyrxiary, 1888. 

We certify to the correctness of the within report. 

J. B. Johnson, 

H. Shidy, 

C. D. Fahsel, 

Board of Examiners, 



330 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



Exhibit F. 

United States Civil Service CoMMissioisr, 

Washington, D. C, llarchl, 1890. 
I hereby certify that the records of this Commission show that on April 2, 1889, Henry 
T. Holtz was promoted from class 1 to class 2; that on the same day Alexander C. Camp- 
hell was promoted Irom class $1,000 to class 1; that on the same day Frank E. Culver 
was promoted from class $900 to class $1,000; that on April 23, 1889, Orville S. Swank 
was selected and employed upon certification under the civil-service rules as clerk class 
$900; that on April 24, 1889, Otis N. Johnson, upon examination and certification under 
the civil-service rules, was promoted from class $900 to class $1,000; and that this em- 
ployment and these promotions were in the clerical force of this Commission, 

John T. Doyle, Secretary. 



Exhibit Gr. 

Commissioner Edgerton appeared at the office of the Commission this morning and 
stated to Commissioner Lyman, in the presence of Chief Examiner Webster and Stenogra- 
pher Morgan, that he had been removed from his office of Civil Service Commissioner by 
the President, and exhibited a letter signed by the President so removing him, of which 
the following is a copy: 

"Executive Mansion, February 9, 1889. 
"SlE: You are hereby removed from the office of United States Civil Service Commis- 
sioner. 

"Yours, etc., 

"Geovee Cleveland. 
"Hon. A. P. Edgeeton, 

" Washington, D. C 

This action leaves the Commission with one Commissioner and two vacancies. 
(Minutes U. S. Civil Service Commission, February 9, 1889, vol. 10, p. 176.) 
A true copy. 

John T. Doyle, 

Secretary U. S. Civil Service Commission. 



(2) Post-Office Department; Dickinson, Postmaster-General, February 14, transmits 
for the information of the Commission a tabulated list showing the number of postal em- 
ployes required for the several lines of postal duty in the Ibrty post-offices where fifty or 
more employes were in the postal service as shown by the rosters submitted to take ef- 
fect January 1, 1889; also, a list of three post-offices — Atlanta, Ga., Nashville, Tenn., and 
Grand Eapids, Mich. — whereat the rosters submitted to take effect January 1, 1889, show 
fifty or more persons in the service in connection with each of said offices; also, a third 
table showing four offices — Augusta, Me., Nashville, Tenn., Springfield, Mass., and St. 
Joseph, Mo. — where the number of employes is less than fifty, but is approaching that 
number. 

Will be acknowledged and the Postmaster-General will be informed that, in view of 
the information contained in this letter that there were employed on January 1, 1889, 
as many as fifty employes at Atlanta, Ga., Nashville, Tenn., and Grand Kapids, Mich., 
these offices will be treated as having been classified by the Postmaster-General in accord- 
ance with the requirement of section 6 of the civil-service act, and the President will be 
informed, as required by section 2 of Postal Rule I, that said offices have been included 
in the classified service and that the Coramission will provide an examination for testing 
fitness of persons employed therein. 

(Minutes U. S. Civil Service Commission, February 21, 1880, clause 2, vol. 10, pp. 
227, 228.) 

A true copy. 

John T. Doyle, 
Secretary U. S. Civil Service Commission. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 331 

United States Civil Skkvioe Commission, 

WaH.h.in(jtoii, D. C, Mmdi 1, 1889. 
Sir: The cases presented in the following requests for non-corapetitive examination 
under General Rule III, section 2, clause (c), are well supported by the accompanying 
papers, and appear to be meritorious and of a character similar to those that have here- 
tofore been recommended to the President for his approval. They are therefore sub- 
mitted to the President lor his consideration and approval. 

REQUEST OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

A. Request No. 384, Thomas A. Green, from messenger at $840 to copyist at $900, 
office of the Secretary. 

B. Request No. 397, Frank D. Hester, from messenger to copyist at $900, Bureau of 
Pensions. 

C. Request No. 399, Mrs. Louise E. McFalls, from laborer at $600 to skilled laborer 
at $720, Patent Office. 

D. Request No. 400, Miss Daisy M. Carter, from laborer at $600 to skilled laborer at 
$720, Patent Office. 

E. Request No. 401, Miss Lucy Dyer, from laborer at $600 to skilled laborer at $720, 
Patent Office. 

F. Request No. 402, Miss Josephine Luckej'', from laborer at $600 to skilled laborer 
at $720, Patent Office. 

G. Request No. 403, William M. Terrell, from laborer at $600 to skilled laborer at $720, 
Patent OfHce. 

H. Request No. 404, Mrs. Pattie Brown, from laborer at $600 to skilled laborer at $720, 
Patent Office. 

I. Request No. 405, Mrs. Julia B. Banks, from laborer at $600 to skilled laborer at $720, 
Patent Office. 

J. Request No. 406, Rose H. Lord, from laborer at $600 to skilled laborer at $720, 
Patent Office. 

K. Request No. 407, Araminta L. Calvert, from laborer at $600 to skilled laborer at 
), Patent Office. 

L. Request No. 408, Mrs. Mary A. Lomans, from laborer at $480 to skilled laborer at 
$720, Patent Office. 

REQUEST OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

A. Communication of February 20, 1889, Frank M. Skinner, from messenger at $840 
to class D, office of the Treasurer of the United States. 

REQUEST OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 

A. Communication of October 20, 1888, also communications of October 16 and 23, 
1888, and February 18, 1889, with indorsements thereon, for the promotion of Miss Bes- 
sie S. Lawton from messenger to clerk class $1,000, office of Quartermaster- General. 
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

CiiAs. Lyman, 



The President. 
Approved March 1, 1889. 

(Letter-book H, pp. 40-43.) 
A true copy. 



Ccmmissioner, 



Grover Cleveland. 



John T. Doyle, 
Secretary U. S. Civil Service Commission. 



U. S. Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C, March 11, 1889. . 
Sir: On the 4th of December, 1888, the President directed the Postmaster-General to 
classify the Railway Mail Service under and in accordance with the provisions of section 
G of the act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States, approved 
January 16, 1883, and at the same time directed this Commission to prepare and submit 
to him for his approval rules governing appointments, promotions, etc. , in that service. 



332 CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 

In pursuance of these directions the Postmaster-General issued his order of classifica- 
tion on Deceml)er M, 1888, and on January 4, 1889, this Commission submitted rules, 
which were, on the same day, approved by the President in the following terms, to wit: 

"The above rules are hereby approved, to take effect March 15, 18b9, provided that 
such rules shall become operative and take effect in any State or Territory as soon as an 
eligible register for such State or Territory shall be prepared, if it shall be prior to the 
date above fixed. 

"Gkovee Cleveland." 

The Commission at once set about the necessary preparations for putting these rules 
into effect, in accordance with the terms of the President's approval of them, and has 
pursued these preparations with the utmost diligence to the present time. It is found 
impossible, however, to complete them so that the rules can go into effect as to all the 
States and Territories on the 15th instant. Examinations have already been held in 
twenty-six States and one Territory, and have been or will be arranged for in all the re- 
maining States and Territories at the earliest practicable moment. The papers from 
these examinations will be marked as rapidly as possible, and eligible registers estab- 
lished; but with the limited force and other facilities at the command of the commission 
it is believed that this work can not be completed and registers established for all the 
States sooner than May 1 next. It is therefore suggested that that date instead of March 
15 be fixed as the date when the Railway Mail rules shall go into full effect, and to that 
end approval of the accompanying order is respectfully recommended. 
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

Chas. Lyman, 

Commissioner. 

The President. 

(Letter-book H, pp. 59-62.) 
A true copy. 

John T. Doyle, 

Secretary U. S. Civil Service Commission. 



Executive Mansion, 

Washington, March 11, 1889. 
Whereas civil-service rules for the Eailway Mail Service were approved January 4, 
1889, to go into effect March 15, 1889; and 

Whereas it is represented to me by the Civil Service Commission in a communication 
of this' date that it will be impossible to complete arrangements for putting said rules 
into full effect on said date, or sooner than May 1, 1889: It is therefore 

Ordered, That said Eailway Mail rules shall take effect May 1, 1889, instead of March 
15, 1889: Provided, That such rules shall become operative and take effect in any State 
or Territory as soon as an eligible register for such State or Territory shall be prepared, 
if it shall be prior to the date above fixed. 

B. Harrison., 
A true copy: 

John T. Doyle, 

Secretary U. S. Civil Service Commission, 



U. S. Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C, Apr-il 16, 1889. 
Sir: I have the honor to submit herewith a proposed amendment to Special Depart- 
mental Eule I, to include among the places excepted from examination under that rule 
in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury that of inspect' r of furniture. 

The Secretary of the Treasury, in a communication to the Commission of date April 
13, herewith inclosed, states the reasons which induce him to ask that the place named 
be made an excepted place. Concurring in tbe views expressed by the honorable Secre- 
tary, I respectfully recommend your approval of the proposed amendment. 
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

Chas. Lyman, Commissioner. 
The President. 
A true copy: 

John T. Doyle, 
Secretary U. S. Civil Service Commission. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. ' 333 

U. S. Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C, April 9.5, 1889. 
Sir: I have the houor to submit herewith a proposed amendmeat to Special Depart- 
mental Rule I, to include among the places excepted from examination under that rule 
in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury the following: 

Custodian of dies, rolls, and plates at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, two sub- 
custodians, keeper of the vault, and distributer of stock. 

The Secretary of the Treasury, in a letter dated the 18th instant, herewith inclosed, 
states the reasons which induce him to afsk that the places named be made excepted 
places; and the reasons given seem to me to justify the request. I therefore respectfully 
recommend your approval of the proposed amendment. 
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

Chas. Lyman, Commissioner. 
The President. 
(Letter-book H, p. 361-362.) 
A true copy: 

John T. Doyle, 
Secretary U. S. Civil Service Commission. 



334 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



Exhibit H. 

United States Post-Office, 
Milicaulcee, Wis., June 9, 1888. 

Sir : Eeplying to your communicatiou of tlie 6th instant, permit rae to state that 
Cnmming's name a^ipears at the head of the register of eiigibles for carrier at this 
ofSce as having been examined October 19, 1887, with an average standing of 89.8, 
and that the secretary of tlie local board claims to have duly reported the examina- 
tion of that date. Your stai ement of all the facts as to Cumming is accordingly cor- 
rect, and your conclusion that "he was and is entitled to tbree certifications for 
position in the grade for which he was examined," accorJs with my opinion and 
action in this particular. 

I shall request the secretarj^ of the board of examiner's at this office to forward to 
you at once a duplicate report of the examination of October 19, 1887. 

You remark further that "the only circumstance which could justify his [Cum- 
miug's] certification to the position of stamper, even with his consent, would be the 
depletion of the eligible register below the number required for a single certification," 
etc. Such was precisely the fact in the case of Cumming, and the depletion of the 
stamper list could not well have been foreseen. In fact, the depletion of lists as to 
competent men can rarely be foreseen or provided for without a considerable increase 
in the number of examinations, much to the inconvenience of the public service at 
this office, where clerical aid is limited to the last point of endurance. 

Moreover, to make certification from a higher to a lower grade is obviously a great 
advantage to the j)ublic service, since it not only provides for the deficiency of de- 
pleted li.-,ts, but enables the appointing officer to secure a higher grade of service 
than otherwise. 

Furthermore, certification from higher to lower grades was distinctly authorized at 
this office in a letter from the Civil Service Commission, dated September 18, 1885, 
and signed by Robt. D. Graham, secretary, in which he says: "Those who have 
taken higher examinations as clerks or carriers may, of course, be certified to these 
lower places and for this jjurpose may be transferred to the lower registers, on their 
request." And certifications of this kind have been frequently made to me at this 
office, under this authority, largely to the benefit of the service, inasmuch as it has 
in many cases secured a better ability and education in lower places than could 
otherwise be obtained, and also permitting more convenience in promotions on the 
ground of qualification and merit. This is illustrated in the case of Cumming, stand- 
ing at 90 on clerical list and accepting the xilace of stamper. 
Respectfully, 

Geo. H. Paul, Postmaster. 

Hon. John H. Oberly, 

Acting President Civil Service Commission. 



Exhibit I. 

[ExliMt A.] 



Analytical statement compiled from the certification hook and other records slioicing the 
manner in tvhich certifications, selections, and appointments have been made at the post- 
office, Milwaukee, Wis., October 30, 1888. 

[The eutry at tlie right of each copj"- of certification indicates the register from which the name of 

the eligible was taken.] 



Certification No. 19, 
Soi)teruber 26, 1885, 
for stamper. 



Name. 



Clarc'ucii E. Chapin 

Hai-iy Flint 

John F. Mmray 

William A. Strong. 



Gen- 
eral 

aver- 
age. 



Ntim- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fle<l. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



335 



This certification was marked "void," and is one of the six referred to by Mr. 
Doyle, in his report, from which no selections were made. It was properly canceled, 
one of the names entered thereon, Clarence E. Chapin, having already been selected 
from the next preceding certification (No. 18). The mistake is one which might 
easily be made in the process of " stuffing" a certification to cover an appointment 
(or selectiou) previously made, in the attempt to "gerrymander" the eligibles " to 
make them gee into line," as the secretary describes it. 

The secretary, however, made another mistake, and an inexcusable one, on tais cer- 
tification and o'u his records. Harry Flint, whose name was borne on the certification, 
passed the clerk examination with an average of 79.3, and his name wasentered on the 
clerk register with that average July 1, 1885. It was also entered on the same day on 
the stamper register, but with an average of 77 only (the average he obtained on the 
first two subjects), and was certified three times for stam))er with this lower average, 
but not selected. This mistake might have worked an iuju-tice to the eligible. 



Certiflcatiou No. 21, 
November 1, 1885, 
for stamper. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 

times 
ceiti- 




89.5 


1 





Stamper. 



This certification contained but one name, next to the highest name on the stamper 
register. This eligible had already been selected and appointed when the certifica- 
tion (in the book) was made. 



Certification No. 22, 
November 1, 1885, 
for stamper. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 

times 
certi- 
fied. 




90.5 


1 





Stamper. 



This certification contained but one name, the highest on the stamper register, 
selection and appointment preceded the certification (in the book). 



The 



Certification No. 23, 
November 1, 1885, 
for piler. 



Name. 



Albert "W. Pliillips 



Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age 



81.3 



Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 



Carrier. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 




87.7 


1 





This certification contained but one name, which was taken from the carrier regis- 
ter. At the time when the three last-mentioned certifications (21, 22, and 23) were 
made (all November 1, 1885) there were five available eligibles on the regular stamper 
(or piler?) register. There was, therefore, no necessity for a resort to the carrier reg- 
ister. 



Certification No. 24, 
March 13, 1886, for 
stamper. 

Stamper. 

This certification contained but one name, but the only one of a female borne on 
the stamper register. The certification was, therefore, properly made, provided the 
requisition of the postmaster called for names of females to be certified. The eligible 
(Miss Whitehead) was, at the time of the above mentioned certification and selection, 
already employed in the Milwaukee post-office as a money-order clerk, having been 
appointed to that position — held by the postmaster to be an "excepted place" — Au- 
gust 1, 1885. She was, however, appointed from this certification (No. 24) to the 
position of stamper "March 13, 1886. The jiostmaster says that this appointment was 
made in order to adjust accounts, "in order to adjust the allowance by the Depart- 
ment." (I did not inquire whether she was allowed to draw the salary of both places, 
as thait seemed to me to be a matter entirely between the postmaster and the Post- 
Office Department.) 



336 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 



Certification No. 25, 
May 6, 1886, for car- 
rier. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral 

aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 




85.1 


2 





Carrier. 



This certification, like the four preceding it, contained but one name, and that not the 
highest on the carrier register. All of those, however, with higher averages had oppo- 
site them on the register — after they had been once certified — the note " Objected to 
and not again certified. " There was opposite Hasley's name a similar entry, namely: 
" Objected to as non-resident; not certified again." The postmaster it seems overcame 
the objection to this one man and appointed him, and the secretary of the board then 
made a certification to cover the appointment. These notes of objection appear quite 
frequently on the registers, sometimes without any reason, and at other times with "non- 
residence ' ' as the alleged reason. The postmaster says that he thinks non-residence ' ' a 
fundamental ground of objection." The board so treated all of his pbjections, and after 
they were made did not give the eligibles against whom they were made the lurther cer- 
tifications to which they were entitled under the rules, except in cases where the post- 
master saw fit to remove his objection. 

In explanation of his neglect to include the requisite number of names (4) in each of 
the five preceding certifications, the secretary says that the persons named on the certi- 
fication were selected (or appointed) before the certifications were made, and that it was 
therelore useless to includeother names. ' ' These persons were appointed, and more names 
would not have altered the case at all. They were definitely chosen and appointed." 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 




93.7 
81.3 
89.5 
79.6 


1 
1 
1 
1 


Shelton M. Minor 









Certification No. 26, 

June 4, 1886, for 

ijiler. 

_ . . Qjgj]j 

Clerk. 
Clerk. 
Clerk. 

This- is another of the six certifications mentioned by Mr. Doyle, from which no selec- 
tion was made. There is entered on the certification-book opposite the name of Alphonse 
G. Lochemus, "Now in postal-service, second certification made to give four names to 
select ifom." Lochemus was appointed December 7, 1885, to a position (clerk south 
side station, money-order, etc.) which the postmaster held to be an "excepted place." 
The secretary considered that a suificient reason for canceling this certification and send- 
ing up a new one, which he did do the same date^^certification No. 27, which was a 
duplicate of No. 26, with the omission of the name of Lochemus, and the substitution 
from the clerk register of the name of Edward A. Graw, average 75, 5, who was selected. 
Although Certification No. 26 was canceled it was erroneously charged up as one certifi- 
cation against each eligible whose name was borne thereon. In attempting to explain 
the matter of charging certifications from which no selections were made the secretary 
says: "It was a nominal injustice. They would not have been selected anyway." 

There were available stamper eligibles when this certification was made. 



Certification No. 28, 
June 4, 1886, for 
stamper. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 


Sanford H. McCall 


90.7 
90. 6 

S9. 5 
8(3.9 


1 
1 
1 
1 




WillettS. Cossett 


A. C. ICwens 



Carriei. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 



This certification was wholly from the carrier register, although there were then at 
least two available eligibles on the regular stamper register. The iour names on this 
certification were taken I'rom the top of the carrier register. McCormack was selected, 
his selection and appointment being dated June 1, 1886. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



337 



Attention is called to the fact that there were eligibles of the clerk register with higher 
average.s than the carriers on this certification, who had evidently consented to take 
lower places, for their names were certified for stamper on the date of this certification 
(see Certifications Nos. 26 and 27), and as they were not selected they were still eligible 
and should have been entered on this certification. The secretary says that it was known 
that Mr. McCormack would take the place and it was intended that he should have it, 
and the other names were thrown in as " stuffing. ' ' 



Certiflcation No. 29, 
Aug. 5, 1886, for car- 
rier. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral 

aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 


Sanford K.McCall 

Willett S. Cossett 


90.7 
90.6 
86.9 
85 


2 
2 
2 
1 


A. C. Ewens 







Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 



The fournames on this certification were from the head of the carrier register, the first 
three having been on Certification No. 28 for the position of stamper. Cossett was se- 
lected notwithstanding the fact that Cooley's name was on the certification, which fact 
was considered sufficient ground for canceling Certification No. 31, post. Cossett's se- 
lection and appointment were dated July 1, 18S6. The postmaster says that he dated 
his nomination (appointment) from the time of the occurrence of the vacancy. He also 
says that Cossett made a kind of statement accompanying his application (when he 
handed it in to the postmaster) for carrier with reference to his previous business, and 
adds: " My attention was directed to him as a candidate through that original state- 
ment. Undoubtedly the fact of his having been certified from a higher register was a 
matter of consideration between us." 



Certification No. 30, 
Sept. 1, 1886, for 
stamper. 

~ ' Clerk. 

Clerk. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 

The first two names on this certification were from the clerk register, and the other 
two from the carrier register. Opposite this certification on tne book appears the note 
"No appointment made." This is another one of the six certifications referred to by 
Mr. Doyle, from which no selections were made. 

It will be noticed that this made the third certification for each man whose name was 
borne thereon, and the certification, it would seem, was charged to them, for their names 
do not appear on any subsequent certification, but, instead, others from the same regis- 
ters with lower averages. This certification (30) seems to have put out of the way four 
men with high averages, two of whom— Ewer and Traverse — had been on only one cer- 
tification, from which a selection was made, viz, No. 27. In explanation of charges for 
certifications from which no selections were made the secretary says: "It was a 
nominal injustice. They would not have been selected anyway. ' ' The postmaster sajs 
that one ot the eligibles on this certification was offered the place, but declined it. If 
that was the case, the postmaster should have noted the selection and signed in proper 
form. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral 

aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 

times 
certi- 
fied. 


Edward N. Ewer 


93.7 
89.5 
90.7 
86.9 


3 

3 
3 


Alfred W. Traverse 


Sanford H. McCall 


A. C. Ewens 





Certification No, 31, 
Dec. 1, 1886, for car- 
rier. 



Name. 



John D. Dropper, jr. 
Robert Seho.sction... 

Robert L. Cooley 

William K. Hughes. 



Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 


91.3 

85.3 
85 
84. 3 


1 
1 

T 



Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 



These names were all from the carrier register. This is another one of the six certifica- 
tions irom which no selections were made. Opposite the certification on the book ap- 
3117 22 



338 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 



pears the note, "E. L. Cooley objected to as residing beyond the delivery of the office. 
No selection." It will be noticed {ante, Certification No. 291) that one selection had 
been made from a certification on which Cooley's name was borne. No great harm seems, 
however, to have been done by canceling this certification, except in dropping off one 
more name (Cooley's) from the register of eligibles, as the first name on this certification 
(John D. Dropper, jr.) was selected from the next certification (No. 32), which was made 
up of the names on Certification 31, except Cooley's, in place of which another name was 
regularly substituted from the carrier register. 



Certification No. 33, 
Dec. 1,1886, for car- 
rier. 

Clerk. 

Carrier. 

Carrier. 

Carrier. 

The first name on this certification was taken from the clerk register, where it stood 
the tenth name from the top of the list of those then eligible for certification for the po- 
sition of clerk. The three other names on this certification were taken in proper order 
from the carrier register. Two of the carriers were out of the way by this (their third) 
certification, and the other carrier (Mehan) by the next certification. Certification No. 
34 was not properly made up, as it contained the names of Schoschon and Hughes, who 
had been "put out" by this certification. Mehan 's was the only name from No. 33 
entitled to further certification. *The name of Gustav Ziegler, average 82.5, Irom the 
carrier register, was added to make up Certification No. 34, and Ziegler was selected. It 
does not appear that the eligibles on the clerk register with higher averages than Paul's 
were ever given an opportunity to consent to certification for a lower place. 

There was an ample carrier register at this time. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 


William Paul 


84.7 
85.3 
84.3 
83.9 


1 
3 
3 
2 


Robert Schoschon 







Certification No. 36, 
February 11, 1887, 
for carrier. 



Name. 



Burton W. Uoyd.... 
James E. Bradley ... 
Anton B. Elblien .... 
William F. Eeimers 



Gen- 
eral 

aver- 
age. 



87.2 
86.2 
81.5 
81.3 



Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 



Clerk. 
Clerk. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 



The first two names on this certification were taken from the clerk register, but they 
were not the highest eligibles on that register. The other two names were taken from 
the top of the carrier register. Bradley was selected, his selection and appointment being 
dated' January 1, 1887. There were four eligibles on the clerk register with higher 
averages than Bradley's. The postmaster, in attempting to explain why these clerk 
eligibles were entered on this certification, says: "On the principle already explained, 
of taking the highest on the carrier list with those of suflicient grade on the clerk list 
to come into the same certification." 



Certification No. 37, 
May 2, 1887, for 
carrier. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 




86.6 

85.6 
85.2 
83.4 


1 
1 

1 
1 











Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 



No selection was made from this certification, valid objections having been made to 
two of the eligibles named thereon — to Ghent as being over age for a carrier (thirty-six 



*If Certificatioa 31 was not charged to the eligibles named thereon, both Schoschon 
and Hughes were entitled to a further certification. Both should have been included or 
both excluded. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



339 



years old), and to Sexton as beiug physically incapable (having lost his left forearm). 
This certification appears to have been charged to one of the two eligibles not objected 
to (Hegner), but not to the other (Jones). See next certification. The error was doubt- 
less due to carelessness on the part of the secretary of the board. 



Certification No. 38, 
May 2, 1887, for 
carrier. 



NaLae. 



AVilliam Hegner , 
Evan PI. Jones .. . 
Anton B. Elblien 
Frank Van Ells .. 



Gen- 
eral 

aver- 
age. 



86.6 
83.4 
81.5 

78.9 



Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
iied. 



Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Clerk. 



Elblien was selected from this certification, the selection and appointment being dated 

May 1, 1887. 



Certification No. 39, 
May 2,1887, for car- 
rier. 



William J. Hegner.. 

Evan H. .Jones 

Frank Van Ells 

William F. Reimers 



Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 



86.6 
83.4 
78.9 
81.3 



Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 



Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Clerk. 
Carrier. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 




78.4 
75.2 
74.7 
69.6 


3 

2 
1 
1 


EmilC. Bauch 









Van Ells was selected from this certification, the selection and appointment being 
dated May 1, 1887. PTis was the only name taken from the clerk register, the other 
three coming from the carrier register. 



Certification No. 44, 
May 6, 1887, for car- 
rier. 

Carrier. 

Carrier. 

Carrier. 

Clerk. 

Wigman was selected from this certification, and his selection and appointment were 
dated May 1, 1887. He did not pass the examination under the rules in ibrce at the time, 
as he obtained an average of only 63.5 on the first two subjects; he was not, thereibre, 
eligible. 

It will be noticed that the name of Benjamin F. Langland was entered on the four next 
preceding certifications (Nos. 41 to 44 inclusive). The secretary explains this error — he 
admits that it occurred through carelessness in entering the third certification as the sec- 
ond, and then in not examining the book back of that certification when he made the 
tburth (No. 44J. Langland was not selected from any oue of these four certifications. He 
was, however, subsequently — July 1, 1887 — appointed to the position of stamper, for 
which appointment no certification appears on the book. It is not probable that any 
certification to cover this appointment was ever made. It is evident' that no formal one 
was made after No. 44. It is not claimed that he was subsequently certified in any form. 
The secretary in his report of appointments (Exhibit M) certifies that he (Langland) wa? 
appointed stamper "without certification," and in his statement before me declares thai^ 
he does not know how Langland was appointed. The postmaster, however, declares in 
his statement that "he was appointed stamper on regular certification from the carrier 
list and on his expressed willingness to accept lower place," and precedes this declara- 
tion with the general declaration that "no person has ever been appointed to such place 
without certification." He attempts to explain the matter by suggesting that certifica- 
tion 44 was probably recalled after Wigman had been selected therefrom for the position 
of carrier, and that, on such recall, Langland was selected for the position of stamper, 
and that the secretary had failed to note this second selection on the certification book. 

Such a hypothesis can hardly be entertained, for several reasons. 



340 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



First, certification No. 44 was regularly entered on the certification book, May 6, 1887, 
nearly two months before the appointment was made, and if recalled would naturally have 
been put before the postmaster in that form, instead of in the form of an informal (mem- 
orandum) certification. If so presented the secretary should have had nothing to do 
with indicating the selection made. It is the duty of the postmaster to make the selec- 
tions and to authenticate the liact by signing his name under the selection. The book 
of certifications and the records of appointments do not show a single instance, unless the 
case of Langland be one, in which the postmaster has failed to comply with this regula- 
tion. He did not indicate or sign the book for Langland's selection.' 

Second. It was not the custom at the Milwaukee post-office to make more than one 
selection from a certification. The book of certifications does not show a single instance. 
Even in cases where the selections made on a single day nearly or quite exhausted a reg- 
ister — all the names on several successive certifications of the same date — a separate cer- 
tification appears on the book for each selection. 

Third. Other certifications (and selections) intervened between No. 44 and the date 
of the appointment of Langland. The postmaster certainly was not authorized to recall 
and make selections at will from any old certifications. Such a course of procedure 
would be about as irregular as the making of appointments to non-excepted classified 
places without any certification. 

Fourth. Certification No. 44 was for the grade of carrier and was made from the car- 
rier register, and the jjostmaster had already selected a carrier therefrom. He had no 
authority under the rules, even with the liberal interpretation he undertakes to give 
them, to select a stamper from such a certification. 

Filth. Langland was no longer eligible. He was "out" on certification, and could 
be restored to the eligible register only by an order of the Commission, or through an- 
other examination. 



Certification No. 45, 
May 6, 1887. For 
piler. 



Name. 



Benjamin W. Wines 

Albert Klotz, jr 

Patrick J. McCormack 
Frank L. Kocejia 



Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 



Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 



85.6 
95. 
73.0 
69.0 



Clerk. 
Porter. 
Porter. 
Porter. 



The first name on this certification was taken from the clerk register, all of the others 
from the porter's— the regular register for the position of piler or stamper. Wines was 
selected, his selection being dated May 1, 1887, and his probational appointment May 
6, 1887. The records of the Post-Office Department give the date of his appointment as 
July 1, 1887. An exceptional case, the appointment not being of an earlier date than 
the certification. 



Certification No. 54, 
January 20, ISSS, for 
stamper. 



Name. 



Chas. Gumming.... 

Louis Smith 

Wm. C. Gaulke .... 
Thos. F. Keaveny 



Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 



89.8 
87.6 
82.5 
81.8 



Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 



Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 



All of the names in this certification were taken from the carrier register. On the 
book opposite the certification appears the entry " Void." This is one of the six certifi- 
cations, previously referred to, from which no selections were made. It is admitted that 
the persons whose names are borne on this certification had consented to take lower posi- 
tions than that for which they were examined. Their names ought therefore to have 
been taken up on certifications for lower places (if they were entitled at the time to go 
at all upon certifications for such lower places) in the order of averages. They were not, 
however, taken in that order, as will l)e seen by the five next succeeding certifications, 
on some of which other names from the same register with lower averages than any of 
those on No. 54 were substituted, although the certifications were, except No. 58, ibr a 
position of the same grade that No. 54 was made to fill. It is evident that these eligi- 
l)les (on No. 54) had not withdrawn their consent to certification for lower places, as 
they were all subsequently certified, although not together (on Nos. 55, 59, and GO) for 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 



341 



the position of stamper. They were, however, so " gerrynianderecl " that two of them 
were "put out" on certifications, without receiving appointments. In regard to the 
canceling of this certification and the making of the next (No. 55) for the same position, 
the secretary says: "It was done for convenience so as to bring the desirable men into 
the proper position — bring in the men who were wanted." 



Certification No. 55, 
February 18, 1888, 
for stampers. 



Name. 



Albert Klotz,jr. ... 

Bruno Losche 

Thos. P. Keaveny 
James F. Keenan 



Gene- 
ral 

aver- 
age. 



95.0 
94.4 

81.8 
75.7 



Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 



Porter. 
Porter. 
Carrier. 
Porter. 



All of the names on this certification were from the porter's register (the register for 
stampers or pilers), except the name of Keaveny, which was from the carrier register, 
and the lowest in average ot the four on the next preceding (" void ") certification, and 
therefore not entitled to a place on this certification. 

Keaveny was selected, and his selection and appointment were dated December 8, 1887 — 
two and one-third months prior to his certification for the position, as it appears in the 
book. He was promoted from stamper to carrier February 1, 1888 — more than half a 
month prior to his certification for the position from which he was promoted. The post- 
master says that Keaveny was selected from the carrier register in order to get the best 
qualified man, because he was a thoroughly qualified man and would accept. 



Name. 


Gene- 
ral 
aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
cer- 
tified. 




94.5 

75.7 
73.0 
G8.0 


2 
2 
3 

1 




Patrick J. McCormack ... 





Certification No. 56, 
February 18, 1888, 
for stamper. 

Porter. 

Porter. 

Porter. 

Carrier. 

The first three names on this certification were taken from the porter (stamper) reg- 
ister. The last name (Cramer's) was from the carrier register. The three carriers with 
very high averages on void certification No. 54, who had not been selected and who had 
consented to take a lower place, were passed over and Cramer, who had a very low aver- 
age, was given a place on this certification. He was selected and his selection and ap- 
pointment dated February 1, 1888. This selection was made to fill a vacancy created by 
the promotion of the man (Keaveny) selected from the last preceding certification of even 
date with this one. 



Certification No. 57, 
February 18, 1888, 
for stamper. 



Name. 


Gene- 
ral 

aver- 
rge. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
cer- 
tified. 




94.5 

75.7 
70.8 
71.3 


3 
1 
1 




Patrick J Reilly 







Porter. 
Porter. 
Clerk. 
Clerk. 



The first two names on this certification were taken from the porter (stamj^er) register, 
and the other two were from the clerk register, the ninth and eighth in averages, from the 
top of that register. Raush, one of the clerks, was selected, and his selection and ap- 
pointment dated February 1, 1888. The three carriers of void certification No. 54 are 
wholly ignored in this certification, and clerks with Tower averages are substituted. 



342 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 



Certification No. .58, 
February 18. 1888, 
for carrier. 



Name. 



Charles Cumming 

Louis Smith 

William C.Gaulke 
Patrick J. Reilly... 



Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 



87.6 
82.5 
70.8 



Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 



Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Clerk. 



This is a certification for carriers, and the first three names are those of the carriers 
whose names appear on the void certification No. 54. The fourth name is that of one of 
the clerks, Reilly, which appeared on No. 57 for the position of stamper. His was the 
ninth name from the top of the list of eligible clerks. He was selected, and his selection 
and appointment dated February 15, 1888. 



Certification No. 
February 18, 1: 
for stamper. 



59, 



Name. 



Charles Cumming 

Frank L. Kocejia 

Frederick Jas. Weber 
Louis Smith , 



Gen- 
eral 
aver- 



89.8 
69.0 
74.3 
87.6 



Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 



Carrier. 
Porter. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 



AIL of the names on this certification, except one, were taken from the carrier regis- 
ter, two of them being names which appeared on void certificate No. 54. The second 
name, Kocejia, was from the porter (stamper) register. He was the last eligible stamper. 
When the first (No. 55) of this group of certifications for stamper's place (four in all and 
all of the same date) was made there were five names — Klotz, Losche, Keenan, McCor- 
mack, and Kocejia — on the stamper register of eligibles, two of them with very high 
averages. Their names were all woven into the four certifications so adroitly as, with 
former certifications in some cases, to put them all out of the way on certification with- 
out making a single selection from the register. The positions for which they were ex- 
amined were filled by the selection of three from the carrier and one from the clerk 
register. Those selected were far from being the highest on their own registers (car- 
riers or- clerks), and with one exception were much lower than the stampers whose names 
appeared on the certificatious with them. Frederick Joseph Weber, on the last men- 
tioned certification (No. 59), had a higher average than the porter (stamper) certified 
with him. Weber was, however, not entitled to this certification, it being his fourth, 
except upon request of the appointing oificer (which does not appear to have been made) 
and not then unless his average would entitle him to a place, and in determining this 
question not only the names on the regular register for the place but all others who had 
consented to certification for the lower place should have been taken into consideration. 
Weber was selected irom No. 59, and his selection and appointment dated February 15, 
1888. 

After Weber had been selected from the carrier register for the position of stamper he 
was improperly allowed by the board to take the clerk examination. His name was en- 
tered on the clerk register of eligibles March 30, 1888, and certified three times, but not 
selected. 



Certification No. 60, 
February 18, 1888, 
for stamper. 



Charles Cumming. 

Louis Smith 

William C. Gaulke 
Frank X. Mayer.... 



Gen- 
eral 
aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 


S9.8 
87.6 
82.5 
71.1 


3 
3 
2 
1 



Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 



All of the names on this certification were taken from the carrier register, the first 
three being the first three names borne on void certification No. 54. One of these — 
Smith— was .selected, his selection and appointment being dated February 15, 1888. 

The report of appointments, promotions, etc. , at the Milwaukee post-office, made by 
the secretary of the board (Exhibit M), shows that Charles CiimmiDg, whose name is 
borne on this certification, after having been certified three times (on Nos. 58, 59, and 



CIVIL SEEVICE lNVESTlGATIO:tJ. 343 

60), not iucluding the void certification (No. 54), was appointed May 1, 1888, to the posi- 
tion of stamper. This was nearly two and a half months after his last certification (No. 
60), by which he was certified "out." Several other certifications were made alter No. 
60, prior to the date of the appointment of Gumming. It was finally discovered, but not 
until Gumming had been in actual service under this appointment for some time, that 
the proceeding was irregular and the appointment illegal. 

More than half a' month after Gumming had been actually appointed and assigned to 
duty — on the 17th of May, 1888 — the secretary of the board sent a communication to 
the Gommission (see Exhibit K) in which he stated that Gumming was certified P'ebru- 
ary 18, 1888, tor appointment as stamper, "which position he refused to accept." "He 
was again certified the same day for the same position," which made his third certifica- 
tion. "He has now reconsidered his refusal to accept the position of stamper, and the 
postmaster wishes to appoint him. Gan he do so? " This was a strange communication 
to come from the secretary of the board, who knew, or should have known, the rules 
regulating appointments, and who must have known, and his testimony before me shows 
that he did know, that Gumming had already been appointed and was on duty in the 
office. His statement was misleading in other particulars. It did not give all of the 
facts, viz, that Gumming had taken the carrier examination and had been certified three 
times on the same date — February 18, 1888 — once for the position of carrier and twice 
for that of stamper. (See letter of the Gommission in reply, dated May 25, 1888, Ex- 
hibit K. ) The Gommission informed the secretary that Gumming was not entitled to 
further certification. This brought on further correspondence, in which the postmaster 
showed that he was better informed than the secretary in regard to the state of the reg- 
isters of eligibles, and confirmed the secretary in his recent statement in regard to the 
"stuffing" of certifications. 

In a letter dated May 30, 1888 (see Exhibit K), the postmaster says: "Referring to 
the record for verification, permit me to state: Gharles Gummings was not examined forthe 
place of stamper, but for that of letter-carrier. At the time he was first certified to me for 
a stamper his name was at the head of the eligible list for the place of carrier, and as the 
stamper list was nearly exhausted his name was used simply to make the certifica- 
tion as to number complete. This without his knowledge or request. On the same 
day — February 18 — he was certified three times, first as carrier, when an eligible for 
clerk was appointed, and twice for stamper, under circianlstances as above stated. But 
he was not examined for stamper, did not then desire the place of stamper, and declined 
the place of stamper, simply because he preferred the place for which he was examined. 
* * * Gan the appointing officer sacrifice all the eligibles on the list by calling for 
their certification to inferior positions, which he must know they will not accept, with- 
out their knowledge or consent? Mr. Gumming declined lower positions while he 
thought the opportunity possible for appointment to the position to which he aspired; 
and now, that such opportunity has passed away, is willing to accept a lower place, to 
the advantage of the service, and I accordingly nominated him for the position of stamper, 
holding his acceptance subject to your approval." * * * 

This communication is stranger than that of the secretary. The postmaster substan- 
tially admits that he controls the certifications; that he could sacrifice eligibles on the 
higher registers by calling for their certification to lower places; that he did sacrifice 
Gumming by having him certified to lower places until there was no possibility of his 
securing a higher position and was willing to accept the lower place; that certifications 
were "stuffed," and that he actually made selections and nominations for appointment 
without proper certification to him. 

That eligibles of higher registers, and with very high averages, were sacrificed by being 
certified to lower places (whether with their consent does not appear) is clearly shown 
by several of the certifications reported on this exhibit. (See certifications 26 to 30, inclu- 
sive, by which three clerks and two carriers, all with very high averages, were put out of 
the way by certifications to lower places. ) Other illustrations may be found on the records. 
(See letter of the Gommission, dated June 6, 1888, in reply to the postmaster. Exhibit 
K, in which attention is called to certain apparent violations of the rules and further 
reports are asked for.) 

In his letter of June 9, 1888, in reply to letter of Gommission of June 6, the post- 
mastersays: * * * " You remark, further, that 'the only circumstances which could 
justify his (Guraming'sj certification to the position of stamper, even with his consent, 
would be the depletion of the eligible register below the number required for a single 
certification, etc. ' Such was precisely the fact in the case of Gumming, and the deple- 
tion of the stamper list could not well have been foreseen. In fact, the depletion oi 
lists as to competent men can rarely be foreseen or provided for," etc. 

In regard to this matter, attention is called to the comments on certification No. 59, 
in which it is shown that at the time when this group of certifications (Nos. 55 to 60, 
inclusive) was made there were five eligibles on the proper register for stampers who 



344 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 



■were "gerrymandered" out by these very certifications, two of whom at least must 
have been selected if the rule of the Commission quoted in the postmaster's letter had 
been followed. 

There is much significance in the qualified expression used by the postmaster, viz: 
" In fact, the depletion of the lists as to competent men," where the question as to com- 
petency is determined solely by the appointing officer with all of the registers open to 
him, and without limitation, at least in the descending line, as to the register from 
which he must make his selection. 

(See letter of the Commission dated June 16, in reply to the postmaster's letter of June 
9, 1888, Exhibit -.) 

Following the letter of the postmaster of June 9, came one from the secretary dated 
June 12, 1888, in which he says: "In order to correct the record as to the certification 
of Gumming in accordance with the views of the Commission, it will only be necessary to 
direct that his name be stricken off the certification (No. 59) in which his name was 
used to complete the list, and to allow it to be again presented to the postmaster. Certifi- ' 
cation No. 59 so modified will be satisfactory, as it still includes the name chosen." 

This is a peculiar method for solving the difficulties of the situation — strike the name 
off, as it was only used to complete the list, that it may be again presented to the post- 
master, and then the certification so modified will be satisfactory, as it still includes 
the name .stricken off — it includes the name chosen. Evidently what he intended to say 
was, the man has been chosen (or appointed) and the matter can be fixed by declaring 
that the entry of his name on certification No. 59 was irregular, but may be left thereto 
cover the selection already made — to save " stuffing " another certification. 

In reply to the secretary of the Commission, in a letter dated June 16, 1888, alter 
quoting the secretary's statement only through that part which suggests the striking 
the name from the certification (No. 59) and allowing it to be again presented to the 
postmaster, says: ' ' In reply, you are respectfully informed that the proceeding suggested 
by your board is hereby authorized and directed, and that hereafter the rules and regu- 
lations nowin force must be strictly observed in all particulars." This action put Cum- 
ming in a position for further ceitification. He was not, however, again certified, but 
permitted to retain his place without ever going through with the form of " stuffing " a 
certification to cover his appointment. The postmaster says that after the question of 
legality of the appointment was raised, Cumming was suspended Irom duty until the 
letter of the Commission of June 16, 1888, was received, and that this letter authorizing 
a restoration to the list of eligibles was construed by him (the postmaster) as an ap- 
proval of the original appointment, and that he therefore restored Cumming to duty 
withoirt further certification or appointment. The secretary says that Cumming was at 
work in the office for some time prior to the receipt of the authority to restore his name 
to the register of eligibles. 



Certification No. 64, 
April 14, 1888, for 
pilar. 


Name. 


Gen- 
eral 

aver- 
age. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 




Andrew D. Tabert 


80 
92 
85 


1 
2 
1 


Messenger. 










Messenger 









The names on this certification were all taken from the messenger (stamper orpiler) 
register. Tabert was selected, his selection and appointment.being dated Aprill, 1888. 
He took the examination for carrier, and stood, at the time, the eighth from the top of 
the list ot eligible carriers. His name was, however, regularly transferred to the mes- 
senger (piler) register, whether with his consent or not, does not appear. He was not 
entitled to this certification, there being at the time two others on the messenger regis- 
ter with higher averages than his,, viz, Joseph Holland and Thomas O'Neill, each with 
an average of 81. 



Certification No. 72, 
May 15, 1888, for 
clerk. 

Clerk. 

Clerk. 

Clerk. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral av- 
erage. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 




80 

77 
77 


1 

1 

1 




Frank Sclioenleld 





CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 



345 



Opposite this certification on the book appears the entry "No selection made." The 
postmaster states that he expected to be able to appoint a cleric at that time, but found 
that he could not. It does not appear that any appointment of clerk to a non-excepted 
place has been made since the date of this certification. 



Certification No, 73, 
July 18, 1888, for 
carrier. 



Evan H. Jones 

Joseph Klein 

Cornelius E. Smith 





Num- 


Gen- 


ber of 


eral av- 


times 


erage. 


certi- 




fied. 


85 


2 


82 


T 


80 


1 



Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 



Opposite this certification appears the note ''Not used." The secretary evidently 
made a mistake in entering certain names on this certification and therefore canceled it. 
The next certification of the following day for the same position contains two names 
from the same register, with higher averages than two of those on this certification. 



Certification No. 74, 
July 19, 1888, for 
carrier. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral av- 
erage. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 




85 
83 

83 


2 
1 

1 









Carrier. 
Carrier. 
Carrier. 



From this certification Dittman was selected, his selection -and appointment being 
dated May 1, 1888. 



Certification No. 95, 
September — , 1888, 
for stamper. 



Name. 


Gen- 
eral av- 
erage. 


Num- 
ber of 
times 
certi- 
fied. 


Thomas J. O'Neill 


81 


3 





Messenger. 



This certification had not beeu made, or at least it did not appear upon the book, at 
the date when I commenced this investigation. It and the selection irom it by the 
postmaster were made just before! completed my examination of the records and wit- 
nesses. The last certification appearing on the book on September 4, 1888, was No. 94, 
dated July 30, 1888. In answer to the question whether any appointments had been 
made subsequent to the one from certification No. 94, the secretary says: " None to my 
knowledge. I see persons around me not yet provided for — one, at least." In answer to 
the question put to the postmaster in regard to this appointment he .says: "The record 
of certificationsis only made up to July 30, and O'Neill has been since appointed. He 
would come on the next certification." The postmaster claimed that this selection was 
made from among other names on regular [informal] certification; he could not, how- 
ever, produce the memorandum certification, but called in thesecretary of the board and 
requested him to give the names which should appear with O'Neill's on the certification. 
Thesecretary apparentlyknewnothingofanycertification.even an informal one, and found 
it necessary to examine the registers to ascertain what names ought to go on the certifi- 
tion with O'Neill's. He made the examination in my presence, and informed the post- 
master thr.t O'Neill's was the only name on the proper register for this certification. The 
secretary then made a formal certification to cover the appointment, and the postmaster 
entered thereon his selection, dating it backtocover the date of the appointment, August 
1, 1888, a month and ten days prior to the certification. The secretary in his report of 
appointments [Exhibit M] says that O'Neill was appointed without certification. This 
appointment was evidently made by the postmaster directly from the register, and with- 
out certification in any form. 



346 CIVIL SfiliVlCfi INVESTIGATION. 

The certiiicatious included in this statement are those containing the most positive evi- 
dence of violations of the rules. The most of those omitted show irregularities, especially 
in the matter of discrepancies between the dates of certifications and the dates of selec- 
tions or appointments. Very few exceptions were found to the rule, that the selection and 
appointment preceded or antedated the certification, at least on the certification book. 
Respectfully submitted, 

Wm H. Webster, 

Chief Examiner. 
Washington, D. C, Odoier 30, 1888. 



Exhibit J. 

[Exhibit B.] 



Statement of George H. Paul, postmaster, Milwaukee, Wis., made before W. H. Webster, chief 
examiner United States Civil Service Commission, September 5 and 10, 1888. 

Milwaukee, Wis., September 5, 1888, 

Examination of Geoege H. Paul, postmaster at Milwaukee, Wis. 
By Chief Examinee: 

Q. What is your name, residence, and occupation? — A. George H. Paul, 321 Hanover 
street, Milwaukee, Wis. , and postmaster of that city. 

Q. How long have you held that position? — A. Since June 1, 1885. 

Q. Who are the members of the civil service examining board at your office ? — A. 
V/hen 1 came iu the board consisted of Dr. Shidy, superintendent of the registry depart- 
ment; Superintendent Johnson, of the mailing division; and the third member, whose 
name I do not recall, was succeeded by Mr. Furlong, a new appointee. Mr. Furlong 
was succeeded by Mr. Fahsel, on the resignation of Mr. Furlong from the office. The 
third member has changed with appointments to the money-order office. P>ut the main 
fact which I wish to appear is that the majority of the board is the same as when I came 
into the office, and both Republicans. The other member has been changed only by rea- 
son of his change in his relation to the office. 

Q. Who has been secretary of the board since you became postmaster? — A. Dr. Shidy. 
He has been the most active member since the commencement. 

Q. Who has had the custody of the records of the board, especially the register of 
eligibles and the certification book? — A. The secretary. 

Q. Do you kuow in what safe place he has kept them deposited? — A. Only incident- 
ally, not officially. I do not think it a part of my official duty to know. I have never 
seen them but in one place — deposited in the safe in the registry office. 

Q. Have these books been accessible to you at all times and have you examined them 
whenever you wished?— A. I do not think I have ever examined them with reference to 
any appointment except upon application to Dr. Shidy himself. There may have been 
some occasion on which I have, during his absence at dinner, got the address of some 
party, but not on any other occasion of business. 

Q. Have you generally or at any time known the state of the register-the order in which 
the names stood before making appointments? — A. Yes, I think I have been aware, un- 
avoidably, of the last. In fact, they have been published iu the newspapers, perhaps on 
one or two occasions; names only. 

Q. The lists of eligibles have been published in the newspapers ?— A. I think so, and 
I must say as simply a matter of truth that the secretary has never regarded the list of 
eligibles after record as in anywise but a public record. Still that is a matter on which he 
should speak for himself. 

Q. Have these publications disclosed the grades and relative order of eligibles ? — 
A. Reporters are Irequently in the different departments of the office for news, and when 
examinations occur and applications are filed, etc., they get such such facts as they can. 
It is a mere matter of opinion, but I do not think the register has been regarded as strictly 
private matter. I do not think the lists have been published frequently, i prefer that 
Dr. Shidy should give his own statement. 

Q. Do you know how the lists of eligibles with averages have been obtained ? — A. I 
do not think the averages have been made public, but simply the names in the order of 
eligibility, perhaps on one or two occasions. I wish to add to my statement that the 
list has never been called for by me or shown by him with any reference to any discrimi- 
nation or deviation liom the supposed requirements of the law and rules on no occasion. 



CIVIL SEEVICE INVESTIGATION. 347 

If it has been examined at all by me, it lias been with reference to what qualifications 
persons standing near the head of the list and likely to be recommended— coming within 
the range of immediate appointments — possessed, and with that reference solely. 

.Q. How have you made requisitions on the board for names to fill vacancies?— A. 
When a vacancy has occurred I have verbally requested the Secretary to certify to me 
the proper number of eligibles formally. 

Q. You have never made any written request on the secretary for a certification speci- 
fying the place to be filled? — A. No. 

Q. Have you seen the blank form of requisition prescribed by the Commission? — A. I 
do not think I have. There would have been no objection to its use on my part if my 
attention had been called to it. 

Q. Have you made requisitions on the secretary in all cases prior to the appointment 
or designation of the person for appointment ? — A. The requisitions on the secretary 
have always been made as a rule. I know of no variation prior to the appointment of 
any person, except, perhaps, in a single case — not the case of a single person, but on a 
single occasion. 

Q. Have certifications been made to you for all appointments prior to appointment, 
in writing? — A. The certifications have in all cases been made to me in writing or ver- 
bally, and I think in all cases prior to appointment, with possibly an occasional varia- 
tion, which may have arisen on a question of construction of the rules or something of 
that kind, in which case my impression is that in one or two cases — and a very limited 
number — ^the secretary would modify the certification to accord with the rule. 

Q. Explain the discrepancies in the dates in certification No. 29 — the date of the ap- 
pointment and the certification of Willett S. Cossett. — A. Without a distinct recollec- 
tion of the facts, my impression is that a vacancy having occurred, upon inquiry as to 
the character of the man, and knowing that he was eligible from the previous certifica- 
tion, I nominated him, dating his nomination from the time of the occurrence of the 
vacancy, upon official knowledge based upon the preceding certification. My inference 
is that the entry of the latter certification at a later date was made under these circum- 
stances. Whether or not these are the exact facts, there was no discrimination or intent 
of discrimination in his favor otherwise than is provided for by the rules. 

Q. State whether you made the same inquiries as to character aud fitness in the 
case of the other persons on certification No. 29 as you made in the case of Cossett. — A. 
I answer in the affirmative by saying that I never make an appointment from any cer- 
tificate without previous inquiry as to the relative capacity and fitness of the persons 
named. 

Q. In what form was that certification. before you at the time you made the selection, 
the book showing that it was not entered until August 5, while the appointment was 
made on July 1 preceding, it not apparently being then belore you in the form of a certifi- 
cation ? — A. I unavoidably know in many cases the names of the best qualified candi- 
dates ior examination. The blank ibrms of application have been uniformly given out 
with instructions to return them to the Secretary, but that injunction is almost in- 
variably disregarded, they being handed to me and passed to the Secretary directly. In 
the case of Mr. Cossett I have a distinct recollection that he made a kind of statement 
accompanying his application for carrier with reference to his previous business, having 
had a large business experience in the city, and that my attention was directed to him 
as a candidate through that original statement. There has never been any partiality 
exercised in the cases of person eligible for a]Dpointment that they may be by their own 
request taken from a higher register. Under the ruling of the Commission, as we have 
construed it, I have deemed it desirable that the eligible willing to accept a lower place 
from the higher register or proper standing should be appointed to the lower place, 
thereby getting better ability. Undoubtedly the Jact of his having been certified from 
a higher register was a matter of conversation between us. 

Q. By whom are the blank forms of application distributed? — A. The rule is that 
they are to be given out by the secretary, but he is often absent, and sometimes appli- 
cants come two or three at a time, aud I simply request my clerk to procure the blanks 
which are in the custody of the registry office, of course constructively in charge of the 
secretary, and to hand them out. My clerk goes into the registry office, gets the Iilanks 
and hands them to the men without even knowing their names or anything about them. 

Q. These blanks are returned to you on completion? — A. Candidates are enjoined to 
return them to the secretary of the board, but very frequently, and probably in a major- 
ity of cases, the injunction is utterly disregarded. 

Q. Yon necessarily know all of the candidates before they are examined?— A. Not in 
the sense of knowing anything about them and their personal history, relations, or 
opinions upon any subject. I purposely avoid knowing anything until after the exam- 
ination, until such a time that circumstances make it probable that they are to be eligi- 
ble for appointment soon. I then make a personal investigation, somewhat, as to their 
character and duties. 



348 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Q. Alter yoii know they have passed? — A. Yes; after I knew they are likely to be 
certified to me, after the next vacancy or within two or three vacancies, I generally in- 
tend to keep well posted in advance. This office, as a general rule, has been so liable 
to depredations that I keep a very rigid account of all complaints to the minutest detail. 
I have endeavored, and considered it to be my duty to endeavor, to avoid the introduc- 
tion of any improper person to the aifairs of the administration of the ofSce. I do not 
believe that without such a prior investigation the office would be safe from depredation 
at any time of the year. I give that as my conviction and as an explanation of the 
reason for the rigid inquiry and investigation as to the personal character and habits of 
every person appointed. I will not appoint a man simply on a scholastic examination 
to take charge of any important portion of the office where he will be subject to constant 
temptation unless I know that his habits are correct and his moral principles reliable. 

Q. Do you understand that names can be taken from any higher register for certifica- 
tion to any lower place without limitation? — A. (Refers to letter of secretary of the 
board. to the Commission, dated September 16, 1885, and reply of the Commission dated 
September 18, copies of which are annexed hereto as Exhibits A and B* respectively.) 
I can not see any conditions except that they should be transferred on the list in their 
order according to average, and provided their grade was sufficient to entitle them to 
compete in the lower grades, and the Commission has been informed as a matter of course 
of my action under that construction and has never intimated any disapproval until a 
recent date when the whole matter was declared void, as being against the rules. I 
have no recollection of seeing the letter of the board, and so far as the reply relates to 
my duties I have accepted the statement of Mr. Graham as a general construction of the 
rule. It certainly is a general statement in terms. Of course, the treatment of the reg- 
isters is a matter which is not under my observation nor within my sphere of duty in 
making appointments. 

Q. Under that provision did you consider yourself at liberty to make selections for 
lower grade positions from higher grade registers without regard to there being a list of 
eligibles for the lower grade? — A. When a higher grade eligible has expressed a will- 
ingness to accept a lower place I have told the secretary, with request that under the 
ruling of the Commission of September 18, 1885, he would include such person in his 
next certification to me for the lower position if entitled to transfer. 

Q. Have you consulted with these persons before appointment ? — A. JSIo farther than 
to ascertain the general facts as to moral character and capacity. If a person has ap- 
plied to me for a place and was apparently a man of excellent qualifications, and there 
appeared to be an absence on the list certified to me of proper parties, in one or two in- 
stances I may have asked him if he would accept a lower position under proper certifica- 
tion from the examiners, but the number of such instances is very limited, in fact not 
the practice, always having reference to the rules and the construction of the Commission, 
as I understood them. 

Q. Have written requests been made in any case by eligibles for the transfer of their 
names to the lower registers, or any written notice of willingness to accept such lower 
places ? — A. I think in a few instances I have received such requests by way of letters 
begging for place, but they have in all cases been practically disregarded. 

Q. Whether made orally or in writing to you, they have have been communicated by 
you to the board ? — A. Generally that is the fact when a formal request for transfer has 
been made. All talk about appointment naturally and unavoidably comes to me. 

Q. Have such requsts been numerous ? — A. Quite numerous in comparison with the 
whole number of eligibles, but no record is taken of them. They are simply expres- 
sions of willingness to get anything to do. I refer to office-beggars generally and not 
to formal applications of eligible parties. 

Q. How have you been able to determine in taking a man from a higher resjister 
whether certification has been made to you of those highest on that register ? — A. I have 
always so presumed and understood — highest of those requesting transfer and eligible 
to transfer by examination. If, in the case of any proper person with whose character 
and capacity I had become familiar, a desire had been voluntarily expressed to me to ac- 
cept any position in the service lower than that lor which he had been examined, I 
would then request the secretary to include the name of such person in the certification 
for the place to be filled. 

Q. Certification 54 contains the names of four persons standing highest upon the car- 
rier register at its date, January 20, 1888. The vacancy was of a stamper. No appoint- 
ment seems to have been made. Opposite the certification in pencil is written the word 
" void." Explain why no selection was made. — A. I think it is merely a clerical mat- 
ter relating entirely to the secretary of the board. I can not say under what circum- 
stances the names appear as they do upon the register. 

Q. The next certification, 55, dated February 18, 1888, for stamper contains the name 

* Exhibits A and B are both in present Exhibit L with Mr. Doyle's report. 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 349 

of Thomas F. Keaveney, also contained in the previous certification. On the first cer- 
tification his name was certified with three others from the carrier register, but on the 
second, with three from the porter's register, Keaveney being selected. Why was not 
his selection made from the first certification ? A. lean not say. Mr. Keaveney was 
one of those who expressed a willingness to accept any position. My impression is that 
he stood quite high. 

Q. Was certification 54 ever before you ? — A. I can not say, except so far as that his 
certification certainly came before me when he was appointed. In what form I can not 
state. 

Q. When was Keaveney selected and assigned to duty? — A. He was employed on De- 
cember 8, 1887, as stamper, on proper certification under our construction. On February 
1, 1888, he was appointed a substitute carrier. 

Q. Do you know whether, at the time Mr. Keaveney was certified with the three names 
from the porter register, he was the only one or the highest of the carriers then eligible 
who had signified willingness to take the lower place ? — A. My impression is that at 
least two of those certified with Keaveney on certification 54 from the carrier register 
had signified willingness. 

Q. Keaveney being already at work, why was he not selected from the first certifica- 
tion? — A. My impression would be, without a distinct recollection of the facts, that he was 
selected from the first certification on the ground of supposed superior qualification. Be- 
cause the appointment is dated December 8, it does not follow that he was in the service 
at that time. The selection may have come afterwards. Certification was made from 
the carrier register in order to get the best qualified man, with the knowledge that Mr. 
Keaveney, a thoroughly qualified man, would accept, and when the second certification 
was made it was made to include the stamper list. I do not think, it comes within the 
province of my duty to make the explanation. Certification 54, accordingto the record, 
is void and probably an error. As to that I have no personal recollection of the facts be- 
yond what the record shows. Certification 55 contains the names of three eligibles, 
Klotz, Lasche, and Keenan, from the porter register, besides Keaveney who had con- 
sented to serve in a lower grade. This certification appears to be regular under the prac- 
tice of theoflSce. Certifications 56 and 57 also appear to be regular under the same prac- 
tice and construction. There is evidently a confusion of dates owing presumably to the 
fact that the entries were not made at the proper time or under some misapprehension 
as to the dates of appointment and selection not affecting the merit of the selections or 
the proper order. 

Q. Certification 55 contains the names of Albert Klotz, jr., 95, third certification; 
Bruno Lasche, 94.5, first certification; James F. Keenan, 75.7. first certification, from 
the porter register, and Thomas F. Keaveney, 81.8, from the carrier register. Keaveney 
was selected for stamper from this certification. Certification 56 for stamper of the same 
date contains the names from the porter register of Bruno Lasche, second certification; 
James F. Keenan, second certification, and Patrick J. McCormick, third certification, 
average 73, and Michael Cramer, from the carrier register, ^8, first certification. Mich- 
ael Cramer was selected. Certification 57 of the same date for stamper contains the 
names from the porter register of Bruno Lasche, third certification; James F. Keenan, 
third certification, and from the clerk register Mathias S. Eausch, 71.3, first certifica- 
tion, and Patrick J. Eeilly, 70.8, first certification. Kausch was selected. State whether 
none of the lower-grade eligiljles, who passed Avith good averages, were competent to fill the 
position and whether all of the persons who were selected — two from the carrier and one 
from clerk register — had signified their willingness to take these lower places. — A. First, 
I presume the Civil Service Commission does not intend to inquire into the exercise of my 
discretion under the law. On a proper certification to me, of course the right of selection 
is absolute without supervision, except by the Post-Office Department. Secondly, as to 
each and every certification referred to, I voluntarily and cheerfully state that the best- 
qualified man was in each case of the four certified selected and intended to be selected. 
Thirdly, that the rank of a carrier and that of a porter on the eligible list is not to be de- 
termined by the mark appended to his name. The conditions of the standing are not the 
same under the rules, not only with reference to these special certifications, but as to all 
certifications from a higher to a lower grade. The actual rank in the higher grade has en- 
titled him to transfer and in the lower grade has entitled him to certification as made. 
My belief is the standing of the person taken from the higher list has been estimated for 
the lower list, giving him the privilege of certification, and that no person not so en- 
titled has ever been certified in this office. It is a further fact known to me that the 
duties of a stamper are determined in a less degree by the rank at the examination than 
by other qualifications not taken into consideraiion by the examining board, such as 
quickness of perception, bodily temperament, and habits of life. Daniel Webster would 
have made a poor stamper, but undoubtedly would have passed a magnificent examina- 
tion. I give these considerations entering into my selection for the intbrraation of the 
Commission, because I am never actuated by private, personal, or political considerations, 



350 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

and not because I deem, the authority of the Commission competent to inquire as to their 
merit in determining the measure of my duty. 

Q. On certification 57 the names of Rauseh and Reilly certified for stamper were 
nearer the foot than the top of the list of eligibles. Were there any other clerk eligibles 
who expressed or were given an opportunity to express their willingness to accept a 
lower place? — A. The rule has been to give to the person of highest rank upon a higher 
list the first opportunity for certification when request has been made for employment 
in any grade of service, as far as I know. Personally I have been governed by this rule 
as to transfers. Often, however, a person on a higl^er list has signified a disposition to 
accept a lower grade of service and then withdrawn his assent because circumstances 
have in the mean time intervened, such as offers of employment at compensation 
greater than a lower grade would afford, or for some other reasons pertaining to his ovyu 
judgment, and those changes of disposition have been respected. 

Q. Do you know whether there were any other clerks eligibles February 18, 1888, who 
had signified a willingness to take a lower place? — A. I think not of equal grade. My 
conclusion as to that is based upon the fact that no others were certified at the time. If 
others had signified a disposition to accept a lower service they would not have been 
certified by the secretary probably, unless of equal actual grade with those of the lower 
grade who were certified, or sufficiently so to come within the certification. 

Q. Had any opportunity been given to others on the clerk register to signify such 
willingness? — A. The opportunity at all times and under all circumstances to signify 
any disposition of the kind has been equal to all persons whose names were upon the 
eligible register and unrestrained. In fact it has been deemed by me an excellent pol- 
icy, as already expressed to the Commission, to encourage appointments from the higher 
grades to the lower, for the reason that the better ability in respect to grade of service 
may thus uniformly be obtained, and farther, because of the great jiroportion of poor 
material wbich appears uniformly upon the eligible register, a fact due to the low com- 
pensation offered, lor the service on the average, and to the further fact that a large pro- 
portion of the applications come from a class which irom some deficiency in ability or 
education or habits of lile find it difficult to obtain employment elsewhere. 

Q. Explain the discrepancy in the dates on certification 36 for carrier. It purports 
to have been made February 11, 1887, and the selection and appointment January 1, 1887. 
As this is illustrative of many such discrepancies make your answer cover all such 
cases. — A. These discrepancies are a necessity of the circumstances in all offices situ- 
ated as this is. When a nomination is to be made the secretary is called upon for a cer- 
tification. He makes that certification in writing. Subsequently the persons certified 
must be investigated as to relative character and ability. This requires more or less 
time. Frequently one or more of the parties are absent from the city and can not be 
personally een. After investigation is made the selection is determined and the secre- 
tary is informed. The secretary of the board is chief of the registry department, person- 
ally responsible for all the valuables passing through it. The clerical force of the 
department is notoriously insufficient, and his time is lully occupied by his postal duties 
and responsibilities. In the case of several appointments they are treated by him often- 
times together from necessity, and the record made up when the time of the appointing 
officer and that of the secretary will mutually permit. In this way the actual record 
is oftentimes not made up until a considei'able time after the certification, and the dis- 
crepancy in every such case appears upon the register. Thisdifficulty can only ])e obvi- 
ated l)y a more liberal provision of law for the execution of the duties of the Commis- 
sion at offices of this class. 

Q. Certification 36, for carrier, contains the names of Burton W. Lloyd, 87.2, and James 
E. Bradley, 86.2, from the clerk register, together with Anton B. Elblein, 81.5, and 
William F. Reimers, 81.3, from the carrier register. Lloyd was selected. Explain 
why Lloyd and Bradlej^ were taken from the clerk register, there being at that time an 
ample register of eligibles for carrier. — A. On the principle already explained of tak- 
ing the highest on the carrier list together with those of sufficient grade on the clerk 
list to come into the same certification. 

Q. Do 3'ou remember that these parties made requests to have their names certified 
to the lovver places? — A. There is no question about it. I do not know the men. I 
have treated these men as entitled to certification on request by the instructions of the 
Commission. 

Q. Albert L. Trumpf was appointed as clerk on March 1, 1888, on a certification dated 
April 14, 1888. Explain that appointment. — A. Trumpf was appointed to a place re- 
garded by me as excepted, being personally responsible to the appointing officer ibr funds 
placed in his possession, as stamp clerk at the general-delivery window. At that time 
he was eligible to certification, I think. Subseciueutly for the first time my attention 
was called to the fact that in order that a position should be excepted it should be re- 
ported formally through the Post-Office Department to the Commission. This informa- 
tion came from a letter from the Commission, I think to Dr. Shidy. I immediately 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 3^31 

called for a certification from the board and appointed Mr. Trnmpf under it iu addition 
to his previous appointment, until the position could be certified to the Commission 
through the Department at Washington, as an excepted one. Immediately alter such 
action I received from the Departmentitselfanotification to furnish a list of all excepted 
positions in the office for approval by the Commission, Avhich I did, including the posi- 
tion occupied by Mr. Trumj)f. 

Q. Benjamin F. Langland was appointed stamper July 1, 1887, without certification. 
He was certified lour times on certifications 41 to 44. inclusive, for carrier, but not se- 
lected. Explain this appointment. — A. No person has ever been appointed by me to 
such a place without certification. He was appointed stamper on regular certification 
from the carrier-list and on his expression of willingness to accept a lower place. 

Dr. Shidy. Certification 42 was the second one in which Langland's name was used. 
In making 43 in the column of "number of times certified " a " 2 " was erroneously in- 
serted instead of a " 3. " In making 44 I referred to 43, and finding that was the second 
time his name had been used, I put it in 44, marking it the third, whereas in reality it 
was the lourth time it had been used. 

By the Chief Examiner: 

Q. To what position was Langland appointed on February 1, 1888, vice Wines? 

The Postmaster. To a position of the same grade, with a slight advance in salary. 

Q. Iu the report of the secretary it appears that Charles .1. Cumming was appointed 
May 1, 1888, without certification. He had been certified three times without selection. 
His eligibility was restored by the Commission June 16, 1888. How was he appointed 
without certification of the date mentioned, his restoration not being until June 16? — 
A. The question of Mr. Cumming's appointment was referred to Commission. On re- 
ceipt of his restoration to eligibility the letter of the Commission was construed to cover 
the original appointment from May 1, and he was restored to his position in the office, 
his service having been suspended in the mean time, and the records should be duly cor- 
rected as to his eligibility in accordance with the decision of the Commission in case 
his eligibility is deemed not to date back to his original appointment. 

Q. In the same report the name of William Gillis appears as appointed May 15, 1888, 
as stamper without certification. Explain this appointment. — A, Mr. Gillis was ap- 
pointed to the excepted position of money-order clerk at the South Side Station. 

Q. Is his grade, strictly speaking, that of money-order clerk? — A. We have only two 
clerks in that office and he has to take turns with the other clerk in tending the money- 
order window. He is, strictly speaking, a money-order and a general clerk. He is a 
money-order clerk for whose fidelity I am responsible. 

Q. Is he borne on the rolls as a money-order clerk or stamper? — A. He should be en- 
rolled as a money-order and general clerk. 

Q. This report shows that Thomas J. O'Neill was appointed August 1, 1888, as 
stamper, yice Louis Smith, and not certified. Explain his appointment. — A. The record 
of certifications is only made up to July 30, and O'Neill has been since appointed. He 
would come in the next certification. 

Q. From what memorandum was the certification of O'Neill made? Can you furnish 
the group of names from which it was taken ? 

(Alter search made for the memorandum without finding it Dr. Shidy stated that the 
name was the last remaining on the list. ) 

Q. Certification 24 contains the name of Miss Josie Whitehead, certified for stamper 
from the stamper register and selected for that position March 18, 1886; but the register 
shows that she was already in the service, the entry, under the head of "permanent ap- 
pointment," reading " clerk in the money-order department August 1, 1885." Was that 
appointment to an excepted place ? — A. In fact she was never in any other than an ex- 
cepted place, but for a time she may have performed some postal duties as a clerk, prob- 
ably because of the want of a sufficient money-order allowance to cover the compensa- 
tion. 

Q. She is in the money-order division now ? — A. Yes; she is the issuing teller. 

Q. At that time she was a clerk in the money-order office and withdrew from that 
place to accept the stamper place ? — A. I think there ■^ere some changes in the money- 
order office at that time, and that she was carried on the list and certified as a stamper 
from her examination in order to adjust the allowance by the Department. I do not 
know that she ever received any clerk salary. I do not think she was ever classed as a 
stamper on any report. My rule has been to select for the excepted places from the 
eligible registers, and my impression is that when she passed the examination she was 
nominally appointed stamper and soon transferred to an excepted place. 

Q. Why was no selection made from certificate 30, September 1, 1886. for stamper? — ■ 
A. Ewer was offered the appointment, bat declined. The record should so state. 

Q. On certificate 31 note was made that R. Q. Cooley resided out of the delivery of 
the office, and no selection was therefore made. Have you always objected to appoint- 



352 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

ing persons residing out of the city V — A. I have done it with the knowledge of the ex- 
amining board. A person residing out of the city limits is not usually qualified for 
carrier. He is au entire stranger to our streets and numbers. I have not considered it 
equitable or within the intent of the law. 

Q. In that case you had other names to select from ? — A. It seems to me a good ground 
of fundamental objection. The selection was made from the list as presented to me by 
the board of examiners. 

Q. Why was no appointment made from certification 72, of May 15, for clerk ? — A. 
The probability is that I was not allowed a clerk for the place I expected to fill. I have 
made no appointment since of a clerk. 

Q. Have you examined the circular in the front of the certification book and noticed 
the requirement that certifications should be entered before any selections were made? — 
A. This circular has now been shown to me for the first time. I have now examined 
the circular thoroughly, but I do not understand it to forbid the selection of eligibles for 
appointment belbre the record of certifications is made, nor do I understand how in 
cases of emergency it would be practicable and at the same time maintain the efficiency 
of the service. In the recent appointment of additional carriers under the eight-hour 
law, ordered to be provided for without delay, the only manner in which the whole 
number of appointments could have been made in a safe and satisfactory manner, in my 
opinion, was to obtain the certification of eligible names at once. Had I done otherwise, 
separate certification by record and separate investigation as to the candidates would 
have lieen required as to every appointment made, thus consuming a large amount of 
additional time on the part of both the secretary and the appointing officer. 

Q. Examine Postal Eule VIII and state whether, in compliance with the requirements 
of that rule, you have made reports of changes in the force. — A. I have observed the rule 
(but not precisely in its present form). Notice of all changes has been given orally to 
the secretary, as required by the rule. 

The Postmaster. I desire to state that in no instance has any appointment or removal 
been made at this office on the ground of partisan or personal preference, and in every 
case any change in the clerical or carrier force has had sole reference to the efficiency of 
the service. No technical error which may appear upon record or in the administration 
of the duties, in the testimony I have given upon this subject, is based in any instance 
upon partisan or personal preference relating to such changes. I ask Dr. Shidy to state 
iully and freely whether that statement is according to his observation as an appointee 
under the preceding administration. 

Dr. Shidy. Mr. Paul's statement in regard to the weight that should be given to any 
clerical discrepancy in the records is a just one, for many of these records are made 
la haste and under severe pressure. There is room for a certain i)ercentage of clerical 
error which I believe does not come to any considerable amount. I have not exercised 
any fiarticular supervision or everexercised my judgment upon the appointments which 
Mr. Paul has made. I think they have been good appointments and made for the good 
of the service. I think that has been his object in making those appointments. The 
mode of making appointments is all shown by our records except as to excepted places, 
of which I have taken no note. I believe them all to have been made in accordance 
with the rules. 

September 10, 1888. 
Statement by Mr. Paul explanatory of the foregoing iesHmony. 

When the foregoing testimony was taken, until near its close, I had never seen or 
heard of a circular of the Commission dated March 15, 1885. No copy of such circular 
has ever been sent me by the Commission from Washington, and no copy of it has ever 
been shown me by the board of examiners at this office previous to this examination. 
For more than three years I have been guided in all my actions by the distinct requirements 
of the laws, rules, and regulations of the civil service, with accompanying instructions 
and correspondence with myself direct, coming from Washington, and by interpreta- 
tions placed upon the same in (!ase of doubt by the representatives of the Commission 
constituting the examining board at this office. I have no recollection of ever receiving 
information from the Commission itself, or from the examining board, that the record 
of certifications was the certification itself. 

deferring to the circular dated March 15, 1885, now that I have seen it, I discover in 
it no distinct prohibition of selections from names regularly furnished me by the exam- 
ining board at this office when called lor. I have been unable to find any such prohi- 
bition in the laws, rules, or regulations or any document ever coming to my notice. 
My predecessor received the certifications in precisely the same manner as 1 have re- 
ceived them, and I have presumed all the facts to have gone regularly to the Commission 
at Washington and been noted by said Commission. For about three years these lact§ 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 353 

have been without criticism of any kind. Morever, I find on my files a letter of Septem- 
ber 18, 1885, soon after I came in office, signed by Eobert D. Graham, secretary of the 
Commission, m which he states explicitly that the "examinations for porters, stampers, 
junior clerks, etc., provided for in Regulation 22 implies that the persons eligible under 
these examinations shall be included on a distinct register of eligihles from -which (mean- 
ing the 'register of eligibles') certifications maybe made to such positions as you de- 
scribe," construed by me to mean that certifications should be made by furnishing me 
naiues from the "register of eligibles, " as the rule of practice. 

Having given my previous testimony under this state of facts as to the practice re- 
quired, I have used therein the word "certification " in a sense quite different from the 
sense intended by the chief examiner in the questions asked. In all cases he seems to 
have referred exclusively to the book record of certification, while I referred in my an- 
swers to certifications made to me before the record of certifications was made up by fche 
secretary of the board. With this explanation, the reason of the discrepancies in dates 
upon what this office has regarded as the record of certifications becomes apparent. The 
certifications have been uniformly made from the "register of eligibles" direct to the 
appointing officer. The selections have been made when such certifications have been 
made, and subsequently the secretary of the board of examiners has made up his official 
record on the book of certifications, the selection dating from the time of actual selec- 
tion and the record dating from the time of actually making the record. 

No one at this office, to my knowledge, has ever dreamed that the Commission ever 
prescribed or ever intended any other method of certification than that I have described, 
either before or since my appointment; nor can I find any letter, instruction, law, rule, 
or regulation enjoining a different method from that pursued at this office, except the 
circular referred to of March 15, 1885, which I never saw, and which, in my opinion, 
unconstrued by the chief examiner, would net forbid the construction placed upon the 
practice by Mr. Graham in his letter of September 18, 1885, and which confirmed me in 
my impression of the correctness of the manner pursued at this office. 

The question of transfer from higher to lower positions was raised in this office early 
after my appointment in 1885, by myself. The examining board were in some doubt, 
and the question was distinctly submitted to the Commission, with the reply from 
Mr. Graham in his letter of September 18, 1885, including these words: 

' ' Those who have taken higher examinations as clerks or carriers may, of course, be 
certified to these lower places, and for this purpose may be transferred to the lower reg- 
isters on their request." 

Now, I wish to say, broadly and positively, that I know of no law, rule, regulation, 
or instruction ever seen by me as coming from the general commissioners or the board of 
examiners which I have not strictly and rigidly obeyed in every particular, in letter 
and in spirit. In the execution of the law, further, the board of examiners has exer- 
cised uniformly an independent judgment, and in questions of doubt as to law or prac- 
tice I have accepted the decision of that board as the authorized voice of the Commis- 
sion itself. I have exercised no control of any kind over that board's action, and have 
never advised such board as to its duties, whether legal or ministerial, and do not sup- 
pose it proper for me to do so. If I had supposed, in my own opinion, that the certifi- 
cations intended a presentation of the record of certifications as the only form of certifi- 
cation that could be made, and the examiners had deemed another course in accord 
with the purpose of the Commission, I should have unhesitatingly surrendered my own 
opinion to that of the representatives of the Commission, on the ground of their superior 
authority in the interpretation of the wishes of the Commission. 

I add, further, that I know of no difference made or that could have been made in 
selections, because of the method of certifications adopted by the examining board at this 
office. It occasions a discrepancy in dates but not a difference in selections, as far as I 
can see. The discrepancy in dates is not in all cases by any means explained by the 
manner of certifications referred to as pursued at this office. Selections for nomination 
only are inade by myself. The appointments are made by the Department, and the dates 
of appointments are fixed by the Department. As a matter of official comity and con- 
venience these dates are often adjusted with some reference to dates of resignation or 
removal, so as to make the actual service continuous upon the roster. This is particularly 
so with reference to substitutes. 

As to the blank entitled Form No. 6 J, I have never seen a copy of the same until 
Saturday last, and was not aware that selections were not immediately reported to the 
Commission; 

In case any testimony is taken in this investigation in any manner affecting the state- 
ments I have made or impugning my official integrity in the execution of the civil-serv- 
ice lavF, I ask the privilege of an examination of such testimony and of cross-examining 
the witness or witnesses before any judgment in the case. 

3117 23 



854 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

By the Chief Examinee: 

Q. Have you preserved the memoranda of certifications which you say have been made 
in pencil prior to the formal certification on the book ? — A. No, for the reason that the 
certifications have been supposed by me to be a matter of record by the secretary as soon 
as he could, consistently with his official duties, enter them upon the record. They have 
been sometimes retained by me for the purposes of investigation of the eligibles as to char- 
acter and capacity, but oltentimes immediately returned to the secretary for the record. 
I know of no instance in which the certification made in the manner habitual at this of- 
fice has varied from the subsequent record made by the secretary, and all selections, I 
think, without exception, have been made in the manner regarded as formal and regular, 
and by uniform rule, in accordance with the language of Mr. Graham's letter, as under- 
stood and construed by me, and the certifications and selections as made were entered on 
the book of records by the secretary, as was supposed to be intended. 

Q. By what interpretation do you conclude that the letter of Mr. Graham authorized 
certifications to be made informally by pencil list prior to the formal certification on the 
certification book ? — A. I have understood from the letter and from the previous prac- 
tice that the furnishing of the names for selection from the register of eligibles consti- 
tuted the formal certification, the adoption of the written method in ink or pencil being 
not an informal but a formal certification, and the record of certifications constituting 
the actual record of the certifications or acts done or certifications ' ' posted up " as de- 
scribed in the circular of March 15, 1885. I think that a careful examination of that 
circular, now for the first time known to me since this examination, would necessarily 
lead to the impression that the record of certifications is a record of proceedings and acts 
done in the matter of certifications. I think, however, that had the circular been known 
to me iJijssibly a doubt would have been created in my mind by its language as to 
whether it was intended to regard the record itself as the certification or as merely a 
record of acts done in the matier of certification. 

Q. In furnishing the list of names for certification at any particular time has the list 
been confined to the four names under the old rule and the three names under the 
new rule to which you were entitled on a certification, or have you had more names be- 
fore you for consideration? — A. The number of Uiames certified in each case, according 
to my recollection, at one time has never varied from the regular number fixed by the 
Commission as the proper number for certification, either before or since the date of 
change m the number. In one recent case, when enjoined by the Department to make 
immediate preparation for carrying into effect the eight-hour law by additional carriers, 
I requested the secretary to certify to me all the eligibles on the old carrier list at once, 
but in separate certifications in their proper order, and the selections were made from 
such certifications, also in their proper order, the certifications each being made accord- 
ing to rule. 

Q. 'Have you always made written requests for certifications upon the blank form fur- 
nished by the Commission for the purpose? — A. I have no recollection of seeing a blank 
form of requisition for certification. I certainly should have used one if one had been 
in my possession, as preferable. I understand that the secretary has an impression that 
he received or showed me such a form, but I have no recollection of having seen the 
form, and if shown me by him it was done in the hurry of other business so that I did 
not become aware of the nature of it, and I certainly have no such form in my posses- 
sion or among my blanks. 

Q. While it is. a fact that the list furnished you on each certification comprised only 
the number of names authorized by the rules to be certified, is it not also a fact that the 
entire list of eligibles of all grades was known to you at all times? — A. No; the list 
was never known to me in any definite way. I have never examined the list with ref- 
erence to appointments until certification came before me, and then only as to the parties 
properly certified. I make this answer with the qualification that parties upon the list 
have frequently applied to me for appointment, often with their notices of standing in 
their hands. In that exterior way, or by the appearance of occasional names of exam- 
ined parties in the papers, not including their standing, I have had some general knowl- 
edge of parties on the list, but have sedulously avoided any formal knowledge of order 
and standing beyond the immediate necessities of the case. 

Q. On the register of carrier eligibles of names entered July 1, 1835, and certified Sep- 
tember 19, 1885, there appears opposite the names of Mathias Roth, John H. Tates, arid 
Charles Buscher the note, "objected to and not again certified." Were the objections in 
these cases such as came under the provisions of old Regulation 15, and were the objec- 
tions made in the form required by that regulation?— A. No; I do not know the ground 
of objection. Talking to the secretary as a representative of the views of the Commis- 
sion, I have repeatedly objected to the certification of non-residents, unless I deemed 
such certification necessary under the rules of the Commission, for the reason that I did 
not deem such persons, in fairness, or possibly in the intent of the Commission, eligible 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 355 

to the places o' carriers in a city like this. I said this much to him with reference to a 
construction of the law, no limitation being expressed in this particular by the Com- 
mission itself as to the eligibility of candidates from any country or clime, but I did not 
object to any selection under the rule specified. 

The Postmaster (addressing the secretary of the board). As to the case of Langland, 
previously referred to in this testimony, the record does not appear to show his selection. 
I have positive recollection that he was selected from a regular certification in the man- 
ner such certifications were iisually made. My impression is that in certification 44 
Wigmau was first selected for the place of carrier and meantime Langland had consented 
to take the place of stamper, and that the certification was then recalled and Langland 
selected as the second man irom that certification. My further impression is that the 
failure to enter on the record of certifications the selection of Langland arises from the 
fact that the second selection from the same certification was not the rule at this office, 
and that in making uj) the record, the secretary, having received my signature to the 
first selection from that certification, deemed the record satisfied, and omitted to enter 
the second selection of Langland; and that I, when such record was made, would have 
jyassed over the entry in the same manner and for the same reason, in giving my sig- 
nature. 

Dr. Shidy. That might have been the way the error occurred. 

The Chief Examinee. Has it been the practice to make an absolute appointment at 
the end of six months' satisfactory service by a probationer? 

The Postmaster. No. I have been in doubt as to the construction of the rule, for 
the reason that I merely nominate and the appointments are made through the Depart- 
ment. For that reason I have construed the failure to remove to ])e tantamount to an 
absolute appointment at the end of six months, and in this conclusion I have been sup- 
ported by the opinion of one or more of the examiners. An " absolute appointment " 
means a reappointment by the Department, in this case, of parties already in the 
service; and such " absolute appointment " would require a renomination by me to the 
Department and the confirmation of such nomination by the Department, a process 
which I have not supposed to have been contemplated by the Commission. As to that, 
I would be glad to receive the specific instructions of the Commission. I would a'so be 
glad to receive from the Commission specific instructions as to method of selections, and 
any other matters as to which the opinion of the Commission differs from instructions 
of the Commission now en file at this ofiice. 

Geo. H. Paul, 
Postmaster, Milwaukee, Wis. 



Exhibit K. 



[Exhibit K.] 

Correspondence relative to the appointment of Charles Ciimming to the j)osition of stamper in 
the post-office at Milwaukee, Wis., May 17 to June 16, 1888. 

No. 1. 

Milwaukee, Wis., May 17, 1888. 
SlES: Charles Cnmming, an eligible under the civil-service rules, was, on the 18th day of 
February, 1888, certified for apiiointment as stamper, which position he refused to ac- 
cept. He was again certified the same day for the same position. This was his third 
certification, as he had been twice certified previously. He has now reconsidered his re- 
fusal to accept the position of stamper, and the postmaster wishes to appoint him. Can 
he do so ? An immediate answer will greatly favor 
Yours, respectfully, 

H. Shidy, Secretary. 
Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C. 



No. 2. 

Washington, D. C, 31ay 25, 1888. 
Sir: This Commission has received your communication of May 17, stating that Charles 
Cumming was certified on February 18, 1888, which position he refused to accept; that 
he was again certified the same day for the same position, which was his third certifica- 
tion ; that he has now reconsidered his refusal to accept the position of stamper, and the 
postmaster wishes to appoint him. 



S56 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

The Commission holds that when the position of stamper — the position for which he 
was examined — was offered to Gumming and declined by him his rights under his ex- 
amination were exhausted, and he was not entitled to further certification under the 
rules in force February 18 last. As soon as the position then offered to Gumming 
a.nd refused by him was filled by the appointment of another person, his opportunity to 
reconsider his refusal passed from him beyond recall. 

This practice isnow different, being governed by clause 4, Eegulatiou VII, but this reg- 
ulation is not retroactive and Gumming can take no benefit under it. 
Very respectfully, 

John H. Obekly, 

Acting President. 
H. Shidy, Esq., 

Secretary Board of Examiners, Fost-Office, Blilwaukee, Wis 



No. 3. 

Milwaukee, Wis., i\lay 2Q, 1888. 

Sir: Mr. H. Shidy, secretary board of examiners at this office, has shown me your 
letter of the 25th instant, in which you give the opinion that Charles Gumming is not 
entitled to further certification under the rales in force February 18 last, on the ground 
that "when the position of stamper — the position for which, he was examined — was of- 
fered to Gumming and declined by him, his rights under his examination were ex- 
hausted. ' ' 

I think the conclusion in this case is based on a misapprehension of the facts, arising 
from an imperfect statement of them by the secretary, and is, therefore, unjust to the 
person whose privileges are involved, and also to the public service. Referring to the 
record for verification, permit me to state: 

Charles Gumming was not examined for the place of stamper, but for that of letter- 
carrier. At the time he was first certified to me lor a stamper his name was at the head 
of the eligible list for the place of carrier, and, as the stampers' list was nearly exhausted, 
his name was used simply to make the certification as to number complete. This with- 
out his knowledge or request. On the same day, February 18, he was certified three 
times — first, as carrier, when an eligible for clerk wa3 appointed, and twice for stamper 
under circumstances as above stated. But he was not examined for stamper, did not 
then desire the place of stamper, and declined the place of stamper, simply because he 
preferred the place for which he was examined. He was not appointed a carrier l>ecause 
1 did not believe him old enough and strong enough at that time lor the duty. 

Has he thus forfeited his "rights," as expressed by you? In other words, has the 
Government forfeited its rights to a first-class man, marking 89, by certifying his name to 
an inferior position without his consent"? Can the appointing official sacrifice all the 
eligibles on the list by calling for their certifications to inferior positions, which he must 
k;now they will not accept, without their knowledge or consent? 

Mr. Gumming declined lower positions while he thought the opportunity possible for 
appointment to the position to which he aspired: and now that such opportunity has 
passed away is willing to accept a lower place to the advantage of the service, and I ac- 
cordingly nominated him for the position of stamper, holding his acceptance subject to 
your opinion; but I had not dreamed that 1 he Commission had closed the door of public 
service against an eligible of higher grade. 

Respectfully asking further consideration of this case, I am 
Very truly, 

Geo. H. Paul, Podvutster. 

Hon. John H. Oberly, 

President Civil Service Commission. 



No. 4. 

WashixCtTON, D. C, June 6, 1888. 
Sir: In the ccse of Charles Gumming, and in reply to the letter of this Commission 
of the 25th ultimo, you state that Gumming was not examined for the position of stamper, 
but for thab of carrier; that the certification of his name for the former position, on 
February 18, was without his consent: that at that time his name was at the head of 
the list lor carrier; that the list of stamper was nearlj' exhausted, and Cumming's name 
was included in the certification to make the number complete; that on the same day 
he was certified three times, first as carrier, when an eligible for clerk was appointed, 



CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 357 

and then for stamper; that he declined the place of stamper, because he preferred the 
place for which he was examined; and that he was not appointed a carrier because you 
did not believe him old enough and strong enough at that time for the duty. 

Before considering your communication, it is proper to say that the decision of the 
Commission in the case was based wholly upon the supposition that Gumming was ex- 
amined for stamper, which was justified by Secretary Shidy's statement as follows: 
" Charles Cumming,an eligible under the civil-service rules, was, on the 18th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1888, certified for appointment as stamper, which position he refused to accept. 
He was again certified the same day for the same position. This was his third certifi- 
cation as he had been twice certified previously." As this supposition was not true the 
decision of the Commission of course falls. 

Cumming's name does not appear upon any report of an examination held at your 
office on file in this office. The only examination not reported, held before the 18th of 
February last, is the one of October 19, 1887, which should long ago have been re- 
ported, and the Commission desires to call the attention of the board to its dereliction in 
the matter. It is presumed that Cumming was examined at that time. It would ap- 
pear from your statement that Cumming was first certified for the position of carrier, 
which was a proper certification; that he was then twice certified for the position of 
stamper without his knowledge or consent, and that when offered the position of stamper 
he declined it. These certifications being made without his consent were improper and 
should not be charged against him. He was and is entitled to three certifications for 
position in the grade for which he was examined. The only circumstance which could 
justify his certification to the position of stamper, even with his consent, would be the 
depletion of the eligible register for stamper below the number required for a single cer- 
tification, and such depletion should be guarded against by timely examinations. To 
make certification in this way is to break down the distinction between the examina- 
tions for different grades, introduce confusion, disorder, and uncertainty into the methods 
of the board, and violate the fundamental principles of equitable competition. It can 
not be allowed. In this connection attention is called to your statement that Cumming 
was on the same day certified three times, first as carrier, "when an eligible for clerk 
Avas appointed. ' ' Bj what authority was an ' ' eligible for clerk ' ' certified and appointed 
to the position of carrier ? What was the condition of the carrier eligible register at this 
time? Why this confusion of grades in certification? This communication is ad- 
dressed to you, but it is intended equally for the board of examiners, and the Commis- 
sion desires from that board atonce: (1) areportof the examination of October 19, 1887; 
(2) copies of the several eligible registers as they stood before the certifications of Feb- 
ruary 18 were made; (3) an explanation of why any persons have at any time been cer- 
tified to positions for which they were not examined. When this information is received 
the Commission will determine what the rights of Mr. Cumming are and will communi- 
catewith you further on the subject. 
Very respectful Ij^, 

John H. Oberly, 

Acting President. 

George H. Paul, Esq., 

Postmaster, Blilwaukee, Wis. 



No. 5. 

Milwaukee, Wis. , June 9, 1883. 

Sir: Replying to your communication of the 6th instant, permit me to state that Cum- 
ming's name appears at the head of the register of eligibles for carrier at this office, as 
having been examined October 19, 1887, with an average standing of 89.8, and that the 
secretary of the local board claims to have duly reported the examination of that date. 
Your statement of all the facts as to Cumming is accordingly correct, and your conclu- 
sion that "he was and is entitled to three certifications for position in the grade for 
which he was examined," accords with my opinion and action in this particular. 

I shall request the secretary of the board of examiners at this office to forward to you 
at once a duplicate report of the examination of October 19, 1887. 

You remark, further, that "the only circumstance which could justify his (Cum- 
ming's) certification to the position of stamper, even with his consent, would be the de- 
pletion of the eligible register below the number required for a single certification, etc." 
Such was precisely the fact in the case of Cumming, and the depletion of the stamper 
list could not well have been foreseen. In I'act, the depletion of lists as to competent 
men can rarely be foreseen or provided for without a considerable increase in the number 
of examinations, much to the inconvenience of the public service at this office, where cler- 
ical aid is limited to the last point of endurance. 



358 CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

Moreover, to make certification from a higher to a lower grade is obvioasly a great 
advantage to the public service, since it not only provides for the deficiency of depleted 
lists, but enables the appointing ofiicer to secure a higher grade of service than other- 
wise. 

Furthermore, certifications from higher to lower grades was distinctly authorized at 
this ofiice, in a letter from the Civil Service Commission, dated September 18, 1885, and 
signed by Robert D. Graham, secretary, in which he says: "Those who have taken 
higher examinations as clerks or carriers may, of course, be certified to these lower places, 
and for this purpose may be transferred to the lower registers on their request." And 
certifications of this kind have been frequently made to me at this ofliice, under this au- 
thority, largely to the benefit of the service, inasmuch as it has in many cases secured 
a better ability and education in lower places than could otherwise be obtained, and also 
pertuitting more convenience in promotions on the ground of qualification and merit. 
This is illustrated iu the case of Gumming, standing at 90 on clerical list and accepting 
the place of stamper. 
Respectfully, 

Geo. H. Paul, Postmaster. 

Hon. John H. Oberly, 

Acting President Civil Service Commission. 



No. 6. 

Washington, D. C, June 16, 1888. 
SlE: Replying to your communication of June 9, relative to the certification of Charles 
Gumming, and calling attention to the letter of the Commission of September 18, 1885, 
which says: "Those who have tak<^n higher examinations as clerks or carriers, may, of 
course, be certified to these lower places, and for this purpose may ie transferred to the 
lower register on their rcqued,^' you are respectfully informed that the practice author- 
ized by this letter is not allowed under the new rules, except where the lower registers 
are exhausted and it is not practicable to replenish them in time to meet the demands 
of the service, and then only with the consent of the persons interested. It will be ob- 
served from the words underscored that consent was necessary under the old pratice. 
Instructions have been communicated to the board of examiners. 
Very respectfully, 

Jno. H. Obekly, 
Acting President. 
George H. Paul, Esq., 

Postmaster, Milwaukee, Wis. 



No, 7. 

Milwaukee, "Wis., June 12, 1888. 
Dear Sirs: In response to your communication of June 6, 1888, addressed to the 
postmaster at Milwaukee, Wis., and calling for copies of "Report of examination of 
October 19, 1887," and of our register of eligibles prior to certifications of February 18, 
1888, and for certain explanations, I herewith inclose the copies desired, and would state 
that persons have been certified for positions for which they have not been examined, 
under authority of a letter from the Civil Service Commission dated September 18, 1885, 
in which it is explicitly stated that those who have taken higher examinations as clerks 
or carriers may, of course, be certified to these lower places, and for this purpose maybe 
transferred to the lower registers on their request. 

In order to correct the record as to the certification of Camming, in accordance Veith the 
views of the commission, it will only be necessary to direct that his name be stricken 
off the certification (No. 59) in which his name was used to complete the list, and to 
allow it to be again presented to the postmaster. Certification No. 59, so modified, will 
be satisfactory, as it still includes the name chosen. 
Respectfully, yours, 

H. Shidy, 

Secretary. 
Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C. 



CIVIL SEKVICE INVESTIGATION. o59 

No. 8. 

Washingtox, D. C, June 16, 1833. 
Sie: Your communication, inclosing copies of report of examination of October 19, 
1887, and of registers of eligibles prior to the certification of February 18, 1888, has 
been received. You state tliat persons have been certified for positions for which they 
have not been examined under authority of a letter of the commission dated September 
18, 1885, in which it is explicitly stated that "those who have taken higher examina- 
tions as clerks or carriers may, of course, be certified to these lower places, and for 
this purpose may be transferred to the lower registers on their request, " and that in 
order to correct the record as to the certification of Gumming in accordance with the 
views of the Commission it will only be necessary to direct that his name be stricken 
from the certification No. 59, in which his name was used to complete the list, and 
allow it to be again presented to the postmaster. 

In reply you are respectfully informed that the proceeding suggested by your board 
is hereby authorized and directed, and that hereafter the rules and regulations now in 
force must be strictly observed in all particulars. 
Very respectfully, 

Jno. H. Obeely, 

Acting President. 
H. Shidy, Esq., 

Secretary, Board of Examiners. 

Post- Office, Mihoaukee, Wis. 



Exhibit L. 



Washington, D. C., 3Tarch4, 1890. 
Deae Sie: I did not read the published report of the testimony I gave before your 
committee February 28 until to-night. As published in the Post I am made to say in 
answer to the question "if the conditions were the same you would see nothing wrong 
in it? " "I did not say that I had done anything wrong." I beg to be informed if this 
is in accordance with the official record. I certainly thought I had said, " I did not say I 
had not done anything wrong." This it was my intention to say; I think I must be 
jDaisreported. 

Very respectfully, 

H. Shidy, 
1607 Marion Street. 
Hon. Herman Lehlbach, 

Chairman Congressional Committee Investigating Civil Service Commission. 



Exhibit M. 



Department of the Inteeios, Census Office, 

WasMngton, March 1, 1890. 

Dear Sir: On returning to the Census Office this morning I made inquiry of Mr. 
Campbell Copeland, special agent and chief of the division on wealth, debt, and taxation, 
in regard to a statement made by Mr. Hamilton Shidy to the effect that he (Mr. Shidy) 
bad (Jharge of clerks in the above-named division, some of whom were receiving $1,200 
per annum and more, for what he (Mr. Shidy) knew, while he (Mr. Shidy) was receiv- 
ing only Sp900 per annum as a copyist, in which capacity Mr. Shidy is employed in the 
Census Office. 

In answer to a question from a member of the committee (his name I do not now re- 
call), I stated that while this might be possible in the Census Office, from the fact that 
in the rapid organization of the office changes of this kind are sometimes made, but I 
likewise informed the committee that Mr. Shidy could not have been in the position, as 
stated by him, many weeks. Upon inquiry I find that Mr. Shidy entered upon this 
work February 11, ihat he is not in charge of a room, that he does give out the work 
for fourteen people, not one of whom is receiving more than $900 per annum, like him- 
self. Mr. Gopeland informs me +hat there was only one instance of a man receiving 



360 CIA^L SERVICE INVESTIGATION. 

$1,200 per annum being placed under Mr. Shidy's supervision, and that was when said 
clerk was brought in and placed at a desk in order to discover his ability in the direc- 
tion of the work that was likely to be required of him. 

The committee will therefore see that Mr. Shidy's testimony as reported in the Post 
and as read to me this morning, is entirely misleading. As a matter of fact, Mr. Shidy 
has never had, except in the one instance referred to (for two days only), a man or woman- 
under his supervision who received more salary than himself. 
Very respectlully, 

Robert P. Poetee, 
Superintendent of Census. 
Hon. Herman Lehlbach, 

Chairman of Committee on Eeform in the Civil Service, 

House of Representatives. 

o /f^ 



LBJa'Ce 



